Assessing the replicability of Cognitive Psychology via remote experiential learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A recent global health crisis demanded the wholesale configuration of both teaching and research from in-person to on-line formats. This presented an opportunity to conduct an environmental sweep on the replicability of Cognitive Psychology in the context of an undergraduate course, in which portable experimental packages were written for mobile phone (Flex Labs). Students received direct experience with studies that had central implications for the discussion of Cognitive Neuroscience (Faces), Perception (Search), Attention (Doodle), Everyday Memory (House), Long-Term Memory (Object), Semantic Memory (Trivia), Decision-Making (RPS), and, Mental Imagery (Rotate). Running across Winter 2021, Fall 2021 and Winter 2022 (average n per study = 585), with the expectation of one study, data consistently produced evidence either for (Faces, Search, Object, RPS, Rotate) or against (Doodle, Trivia) the original findings. The Flex Lab scheme not only allows students to play an active role in the discussion of the replication crises within empirical science, but also provides a framework for the future implementation of experiential learning during remote and asynchronous teaching. With continued evaluation made possible via Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/kv5qp/), a central question for all future research is whether on-line data collection violates an essential auxiliary assumption for the replication of in-person data collection.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.030 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".