MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W345340680 · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-07794-9_8

A Review of Validity Evidence Presented in the Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology (2002–2012): Misconceptions and Recommendations for Validation Research

2014· review· en· W345340680 on OpenAlexaff
Katie E. Gunnell, Benjamin J. I. Schellenberg, Philip M. Wilson, Peter R.E. Crocker, Diane E. Mack, Bruno D. Zumbo

Bibliographic record

VenueSocial indicators research series · 2014
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMotivation and Self-Concept in Sports
Canadian institutionsRegional Municipality of NiagaraBrock UniversityUniversity of ManitobaUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCitationPsychologyExternal validityApplied psychologyCriterion validityInternal validityConcurrent validityConstruct validitySocial psychologyClinical psychologyPsychometricsLibrary scienceComputer scienceStatisticsMathematics

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

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)0.161
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.372
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.839
Threshold uncertainty score0.854

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1610.372
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0080.005
Bibliometrics0.0190.014
Science and technology studies0.0020.008
Scholarly communication0.0080.007
Open science0.0040.006
Research integrity0.0030.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.426
GPT teacher head0.578
Teacher spread0.151 · 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.

Study designSystematic review
DomainMethods
GenreReview

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

Citations21
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueSocial indicators research seriesSame topicMotivation and Self-Concept in SportsFrench-language works237,207