Machine learning to analyze single‐case graphs: A comparison to visual inspection
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Behavior analysts commonly use visual inspection to analyze single-case graphs, but studies on its reliability have produced mixed results. To examine this issue, we compared the Type I error rate and power of visual inspection with a novel approach-machine learning. Five expert visual raters analyzed 1,024 simulated AB graphs, which differed on number of points per phase, autocorrelation, trend, variability, and effect size. The ratings were compared to those obtained by the conservative dual-criteria method and two models derived from machine learning. On average, visual raters agreed with each other on only 75% of graphs. In contrast, both models derived from machine learning showed the best balance between Type I error rate and power while producing more consistent results across different graph characteristics. The results suggest that machine learning may support researchers and practitioners in making fewer errors when analyzing single-case graphs, but replications remain necessary.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.145 | 0.496 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".