MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4389914237 · doi:10.1073/pnas.2303706120

Validation of the reading the mind in the eyes test requires an interpretable factor model

2023· letter· en· W4389914237 on OpenAlexaff
Wendy C. Higgins, Victoria Savalei, Vince Polito, Robert M. Ross

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · 2023
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicCognitive Abilities and Testing
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersMacquarie UniversityAustralian GovernmentJohn Templeton Foundation
KeywordsReading (process)Factor (programming language)Test (biology)Artificial intelligencePsychologyComputer scienceNatural language processingBiologyPhilosophyLinguisticsProgramming languageEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Structures from the Stone Age can provide unique insights into Late Glacial and Mesolithic cultures around the Baltic Sea. Such structures, however, usually did not survive within the densely populated Central European subcontinent. Here, we ...The Baltic Sea basins, some of which only submerged in the mid-Holocene, preserve Stone Age structures that did not survive on land. Yet, the discovery of these features is challenging and requires cross-disciplinary approaches between archeology and ...

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 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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.494
Threshold uncertainty score0.506

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.144
GPT teacher head0.382
Teacher spread0.238 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations5
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the National Academy of SciencesSame topicCognitive Abilities and TestingFrench-language works237,207