MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3104456111 · doi:10.51656/psycause.v10i1.30452

Éditorial

2020· article· fr· W3104456111 on OpenAlex
Pier-Alexandre Rioux

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.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.

Bibliographic record

VenuePsycause revue scientifique étudiante de l École de psychologie de l Université Laval · 2020
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEducation, sociology, and vocational training
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPhilosophyPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

La nécessité de porter un regard critique sur les recherches en psychologie est incontournable. Ce regard sur les études est possible par l’entremise de certaines connaissances sur les méthodologies en recherche, en saisissant bien les pours et les contres des méthodes prescrites par la recherche en termes de validité et de fidélité. Outre le plaisir que l’on peut trouver face à l’analyse de certaines études, il est d’autant plus essentiel de porter attention à des courants qui semblent anodins à première vue, mais qui ont pour but d’orienter et de structurer la recherche en psychologie. Ces courants « souterrains » de la psychologie agissent continuellement sur le flux d’études qui nous est accessible et ils sont, en quelque sorte, la clé qui nous permet d’accéder à une compréhension plus riche de la recherche en psychologie.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.509
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.183
GPT teacher head0.390
Teacher spread0.207 · 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