Tutorial: Artificial neural networks to analyze single-case experimental designs.
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Since the start of the 21st century, few advances have had as far-reaching impact in science as the widespread adoption of artificial neural networks in fields as diverse as fundamental physics, clinical medicine, and psychology. In research methods, one promising area for the adoption of artificial neural networks involves the analysis of single-case experimental designs. Given that these types of networks are not generally part of training in the psychological sciences, the purpose of our article is to provide a step-by-step introduction to using artificial neural networks to analyze single-case designs. To this end, we trained a new model using data from a Monte Carlo simulation to analyze multiple baseline graphs and compared its outcomes with traditional methods of analysis. In addition to showing that artificial neural networks may produce less error than other methods, this tutorial provides information to facilitate the replication and extension of this line of work to other designs and datasets. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 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.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it