Choosing between prediction and explanation in geological engineering: lessons from psychology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In their highly influential paper, Yarkoni, Tal, and Jacob Westfall. 2017. “Choosing Prediction over Explanation in Psychology: Lessons from Machine Learning.” Perspectives on Psychological Science 12 (6):1100–1122. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691617693393 the authors highlight difficulties in traditional explanatory research in the field of psychology and argue in favour of novel data-driven science. By applying machine-learning methods to large data sets, predictive power has been shown to increase significantly. Geological engineers are responsible for a wide range of applications, including the design of tunnels, dams, foundations, and mines. While the field of geological engineering stands on solid mechanistic grounds, we argue that its predictive aspect aligns more closely with psychology than other mechanistic sciences. We therefore propose a paradigm shift in geological engineering research towards a prediction-centric approach. Potentially, this could enhance cost-effectiveness in structural design and lead to substantial societal savings.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.013 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".