Evaluating an Excel‐based tool for interpreting functional analyses: A functional analysis decision support system
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
When applied to functional analysis results, structured visual inspection criteria have resulted in improvements in the levels of agreement between raters as well as earlier identification of the function of challenging behavior. However, multistep criteria can be difficult to apply in real time, which could be a barrier to widespread adoption in practice. This study evaluated a Microsoft-Excel-based functional analysis decision support system (FADSS), which could aid behavior analysts with interpreting functional analysis results. Final overall agreement between the FADSS and post hoc visual inspection was high at 95%. Final overall agreement between the post hoc results generated by FADSS and ongoing results generated by FADSS was acceptable at 81%, representing a 50% increase in efficiency. These results indicate that FADSS could aid behavior analysts when interpreting functional analysis results in real time.
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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