MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3015227360 · doi:10.3389/fnhum.2020.00115

Corrigendum: Variability in Executive Control Performance Is Predicted by Physical Activity

2020· erratum· en· W3015227360 on OpenAlexaff
G. Kyle Gooderham, Simon Ho, Todd C. Handy

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Human Neuroscience · 2020
Typeerratum
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMental Health Research Topics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStandard deviationCoefficient of variationStatisticsParagraphStandard errorVariation (astronomy)Measure (data warehouse)MathematicsMean valueRelative standard deviationCorrelation coefficientPsychologyComputer scienceData mining

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Predicted by Physical Activity. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience,13,463. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2019.00463In the original article, there was an error. The descriptive definition for the coefficient of variation was incorrectly provided. In the original manuscript the definition was given as the mean reaction time divided by the standard deviation. This was an error as the coefficient of variation was calculated as the standard deviation divided by the mean.A correction has been made to Materials and Methods, Coefficient of Variation, Paragraph Number 1:The RT coefficient of variation (RTCV) was selected as the primary measure of individual variability and was the dependent variable in data analysis. The RTCV is calculated by dividing the standard deviation of a participant's RT by their mean RT for each measure. For example, in Experiment 3, the standard deviation of the RT for all of one participant's incompatiblecongruent trials would be divided by the mean RT of the corresponding trials. The resulting value is a standardized score that can be compared across measures. A RTCV was calculated for each participant for each cognitive measurement.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.069
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.077
Threshold uncertainty score0.258

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.069
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0040.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0770.038

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 head0.053
GPT teacher head0.367
Teacher spread0.314 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in Human NeuroscienceSame topicMental Health Research TopicsFrench-language works237,207