MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2967106060 · doi:10.1080/17437199.2019.1652107

Bringing the social context into research using the common sense model

2019· review· en· W2967106060 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueHealth Psychology Review · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth, psychology, and well-being
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCommon senseContext (archaeology)PsychologyAdaptation (eye)PerceptionSocial psychologyMedicineEpistemologyHistoryNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The common sense model (CSM: Leventhal, Meyer, & Nerenz, 1980; Leventhal, Phillips, & Burns, 2016) is an influential framework for understanding patient perceptions of, and adaptation to, illness. ...

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.046
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesResearch integrity
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.695
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0460.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0100.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.016
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.004

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 head0.750
GPT teacher head0.735
Teacher spread0.015 · 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