The Replication Database: Documenting the Replicability of Psychological Science
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In psychological science, replicability—repeating a study with a new sample achieving consistent results (Parsons et al., 2022)—is critical for affirming the validity of scientific findings. Despite its importance, replication efforts are few and far between in psychological science with many attempts failing to corroborate past findings. This scarcity, compounded by the difficulty in accessing replication data, jeopardizes the efficient allocation of research resources and impedes scientific advancement. Addressing this crucial gap, we present the Replication Database (https://forrt-replications.shinyapps.io/fred_explorer), a novel platform hosting 1,239 original findings paired with replication findings. The infrastructure of this database allows researchers to submit, access, and engage with replication findings. The database makes replications visible, easily findable via a graphical user interface, and tracks replication rates across various factors, such as publication year or journal. This will facilitate future efforts to evaluate the robustness of psychological 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.
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 | 0.518 | 0.837 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.026 | 0.027 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.024 | 0.022 |
| Open science | 0.009 | 0.019 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.044 | 0.021 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".