MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4280596915 · doi:10.1037/met0000497

Causal mediation effects in single case experimental designs.

2022· article· en· W4280596915 on OpenAlexaff
Matthew J. Valente, Judith J. M. Rijnhart, Milica Miočević

Bibliographic record

VenuePsychological Methods · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicBehavioral and Psychological Studies
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersNational Institute on Drug Abuse
KeywordsMediationType I and type II errorsStatisticsConfidence intervalEconometricsEstimatorStatistical powerMonte Carlo methodCausal modelPsychologyStandard errorOutcome (game theory)Statistical hypothesis testingMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

= .05) Type I error rates and higher statistical power than normal theory confidence intervals. For the causal direct effects and total effect, normal theory confidence intervals provided accurate Type I error rates and higher statistical power than the Monte Carlo confidence intervals. Limitations and future directions are discussed. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

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)0.317
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.650
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.317
Threshold uncertainty score0.843

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.3170.650
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.004
Bibliometrics0.0040.005
Science and technology studies0.0030.007
Scholarly communication0.0060.007
Open science0.0050.005
Research integrity0.0060.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0500.004

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 head0.551
GPT teacher head0.527
Teacher spread0.024 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations19
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePsychological MethodsSame topicBehavioral and Psychological StudiesFrench-language works237,207