Open Science at <i>Clinical Psychological Science</i> : Reflections on Progress, Lessons Learned, and Suggestions for Continued Improvement
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
Open science is challenging and frequently time-consuming work, but the payoff is greater assurance that published research is transparent, conducted rigorously, and protected against some forms of researcher bias. In this editorial, we reflect on progress made toward the integration of open-science practices at Clinical Psychological Science ( CPS) 7 years after badges were introduced in the journal and 3 years after open science was initiated as an editorial priority at CPS. Along with establishing open science as an editorial priority, the first team of Open Science Advisors was established to oversee and facilitate preregistration, open materials, and open data badge applications. Here, we discuss how these practices have evolved over time, highlight best practices and common challenges in this work, and emphasize next steps for the future of open science in clinical-psychology research.
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 | 0.404 | 0.200 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.032 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.016 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
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