MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4238882524 · doi:10.20982/tqmp.16.4.p422

Erratum to {A}ppendix C of "A review of effect sizes and their confidence intervals, Part I: The Cohen's d family"

2020· erratum· en· W4238882524 on OpenAlexaff
Jean‐Christophe Goulet‐Pelletier, Denis Cousineau

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Quantitative Methods for Psychology · 2020
Typeerratum
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicMeta-analysis and systematic reviews
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConfidence intervalMathematicsStatisticsPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The results of the method for estimating confidence intervals according to Steiger and Fouladi (1997) were not displayed correctly in our published paper (Figure We correct the figure here. The new figure changes our interpretation of the method to a more favorable appreciation.

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)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.220
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.987
Threshold uncertainty score0.263

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.220
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.003
Bibliometrics0.0090.007
Science and technology studies0.0040.002
Scholarly communication0.0050.003
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0050.012
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0790.053

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 head0.754
GPT teacher head0.648
Teacher spread0.106 · 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 designNot applicable
DomainMethods
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

Citations15
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Quantitative Methods for PsychologySame topicMeta-analysis and systematic reviewsFrench-language works237,207