MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Evidence‐Based Assessment

2015· other· en· W3024004591 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

VenueThe Encyclopedia of Clinical Psychology · 2015
Typeother
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPsychological Testing and Assessment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIdentification (biology)Interpretation (philosophy)PsychologyManagement scienceComputer scienceEngineering ethicsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract As part of the evidence‐based practice movement, a noticeable shift has occurred in the psychological assessment literature, with greater attention focused on the ways in which assessments are conducted and used to guide practice. This advance has also led to the development of evidence‐based assessment, an approach to clinical evaluation that emphasizes the use of research and theory to guide the selection of constructs, the methods and measures used in the assessment, and the interpretation of the resulting assessment data. This entry reviews the current state of evidence‐based assessment efforts and the scientific and logistic challenges that will need to be addressed in order to facilitate the identification and dissemination of evidence‐based assessment practices.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.046
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0260.002

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 head0.478
GPT teacher head0.594
Teacher spread0.115 · 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