MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2968650104 · doi:10.1016/j.tics.2019.07.009

Preregistration Is Hard, And Worthwhile

2019· review· en· W2968650104 on OpenAlexaff
Brian A. Nosek, Emorie D Beck, Lorne Campbell, Jessica Kay Flake, Tom E Hardwicke, David Thomas Mellor, Anna van 't Veer, Simine Vazire

Bibliographic record

VenueTrends in Cognitive Sciences · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicMeta-analysis and systematic reviews
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityWestern University
FundersNational Institute on AgingNational Institutes of HealthTempleton Religion TrustJohn Templeton FoundationTempleton World Charity FoundationEinstein Stiftung Berlin
KeywordsCredibilityPsychologyHumilityFlexibility (engineering)Engineering ethicsSocial psychologyEpistemologyManagementLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex
No abstract in any covered source. Its absence is recorded, not treated as a negative.

No abstract. This is not a gap in this database; OpenAlex has none either. 23.3% of the frame is in this state, and the screen finds HALF as much metaresearch here, so the absence is a measured bias rather than a missing field.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmaMetaresearch
Domain: Reproducibility · Genre: Review
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Theoretical or conceptuallow
gptMetaresearch
Domain: Reproducibility · Genre: Commentary
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Not applicablehigh
models splitAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

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)0.358
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.741
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Open science
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Reproducibility · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.994
Threshold uncertainty score0.792

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.3580.741
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0150.009
Bibliometrics0.0170.012
Science and technology studies0.0030.005
Scholarly communication0.0150.023
Open science0.0060.008
Research integrity0.0100.014
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0180.008

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 head0.955
GPT teacher head0.664
Teacher spread0.290 · 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

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

Metaresearch

The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual · Not applicable
DomainReproducibility
GenreReview · Commentary

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

Citations355
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueTrends in Cognitive SciencesSame topicMeta-analysis and systematic reviewsCategoryMetaresearchFrench-language works237,207