MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4367059658 · doi:10.31219/osf.io/ywa9c

Some problems with zooming out as science reform

2023· preprint· en· W4367059658 on OpenAlexaff
Jessica Hullman

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMental Health Research Topics
Canadian institutionsScience North
FundersDirectorate for Computer and Information Science and EngineeringMicrosoft ResearchNational Science Foundation
KeywordsStatus quoRendering (computer graphics)InterpretabilityComputer scienceZoomEmpirical researchArtificial intelligenceManagement scienceMathematicsPolitical scienceStatisticsEconomicsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Like other approaches to rendering explicit and sampling systematically from a design space of empirical results, integrative experiment design (Almaatouq et al., 2022) can improve the status quo in empirical social and behavioral science. However, reform proposals that start from data generated by sampling and expect to get to good theory misconstrue the role of theory in learning from experiments. Attempts to debias data-driven inferences by “zooming out” are also challenged by the inseparability of the results sampled from a design space from the assumptions that produce them and the difficulty of rendering dependencies explicit without sacrificing interpretability.

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)0.159
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.403
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.841
Threshold uncertainty score0.840

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1590.403
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0040.030
Scholarly communication0.0070.019
Open science0.0050.008
Research integrity0.0060.017
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0210.003

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 head0.254
GPT teacher head0.503
Teacher spread0.249 · 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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMental Health Research Topics→French-language works237,207→