MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2936984007 · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00797

When a “Replication” Is Not a Replication. Commentary: Sequential Congruency Effects in Monolingual and Bilingual Adults

2019· letter· en· W2936984007 on OpenAlexafffund
John G. Grundy, Ellen Bialystok

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Psychology · 2019
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeurobiology of Language and Bilingualism
Canadian institutionsYork University
FundersCanadian Network for Research and Innovation in Machining Technology, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsReplication (statistics)PsychologyCognitionCognitive psychologyCognitive scienceNeuroscienceMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

GENERAL COMMENTARY article Front. Psychol., 12 April 2019Sec. Cognitive Science Volume 10 - 2019 | https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00797

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.045
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Reproducibility · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.994
Threshold uncertainty score0.061

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.045
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.004
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0050.002
Research integrity0.0460.028
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0180.017

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.024
GPT teacher head0.319
Teacher spread0.295 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
DomainReproducibility
GenreCommentary

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations9
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in PsychologySame topicNeurobiology of Language and BilingualismFrench-language works237,207