MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4318929966 · doi:10.1037/cep0000303

Text validation: Overlooking discrepancies in question constructions.

2023· article· en· W4318929966 on OpenAlex

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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Experimental Psychology/Revue canadienne de psychologie expérimentale · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicText Readability and Simplification
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsInterrogativeInterrogative wordConsistency (knowledge bases)LinguisticsConstruct (python library)VerbPsychologySentencePsycINFONatural language processingComputer scienceCognitive psychologyArtificial intelligencePhilosophyMEDLINE

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

to both given and new text discrepancies in numerous declarative syntactic constructions (Singer et al., 2017; Singer & Spear, 2020). Five new experiments addressed these phenomena with reference to constructions regularly shown to mask discourse inconsistencies: namely, interrogatives. In striking contrast with declaratives, five interrogative conditions in four experiments yielded no significant consistency effect. Experiments 2-4 documented coincident consistency effects with declarative but not interrogative constructions. A fifth experiment denied that the interrogative-construction findings resulted from readers' lack of knowledge about critical concepts. The cognitive-scientific linguistic construct of verb resolutivity offers a possible basis for these outcomes. (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.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.528
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.040
GPT teacher head0.320
Teacher spread0.280 · 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