MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4254492958 · doi:10.31234/osf.io/q247m

The Validation Crisis in Psychology

2019· preprint· en· W4254492958 on OpenAlexaff
Ulrich Schimmack

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicQualitative Comparative Analysis Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNomological networkConstruct validityConstruct (python library)Cronbach's alphaPsychologyStructural equation modelingPoint (geometry)Applied psychologyPsychometricsComputer scienceClinical psychologyMathematicsProgramming languageMachine learning

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this commentary on the state of validation research in psychology, I review Cronbach and Fiske’s (1955) seminal article and point out that the term is widely used, but researchers rarely follow their recommendations. Most important, construct validation requires specification of a nomological net, which could be done with a structural equation model and construct validity should be quantified, which could be done by means of factor loadings in an SEM measurement model.

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)0.157
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.250
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.843
Threshold uncertainty score0.831

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1570.250
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0040.004
Science and technology studies0.0090.088
Scholarly communication0.0170.033
Open science0.0050.011
Research integrity0.0300.060
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 head0.274
GPT teacher head0.593
Teacher spread0.319 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
DomainMethods
GenreCommentary

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

Citations12
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicQualitative Comparative Analysis ResearchFrench-language works237,207