MétaCan
Menu

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

Venuenot available
Typebook
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicPsychometric Methodologies and Testing
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConstruct validityExternal validityCriterion validityConcurrent validityPsychologyIncremental validityScale (ratio)ValidityConstruct (python library)Predictive validityTest validityTest (biology)Internal validityFace validitySample (material)Content validityCognitive psychologySocial psychologyComputer scienceMathematicsPsychometricsStatisticsDevelopmental psychologyGeographyCartographyInternal consistency

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract In order for a scale to be useful, the user must be able to draw accurate conclusions about the presence or absence of the attribute being measured. This is the domain of validity. What validity is and how it is assessed has changed greatly over the past 40 years, although many who develop or validate scales are unaware of this. This chapter discusses what is meant by validity and how it is assessed. The major points are that: (1) validity is not a property of the test, but may change depending on the sample and the conditions under which the test is given, and (2) there are not different ‘types’ of validity—they are all various aspects of construct validity. The chapter also describes different types of studies that can establish construct validity.

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)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.165
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, 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 score0.379
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.165
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.005

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 head0.820
GPT teacher head0.532
Teacher spread0.288 · 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

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicPsychometric Methodologies and TestingFrench-language works237,207