MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W631824357 · doi:10.1177/0734282915590064

Getting Back to the Main Point

2015· article· en· W631824357 on OpenAlexaffabout
Allyson G. Harrison, Alana Holmes, Robert Silvestri, Irene T. Armstrong

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Psychoeducational Assessment · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicCognitive Abilities and Testing
Canadian institutionsCambrian CollegeQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyWechsler Adult Intelligence ScaleNormativeMillerClinical psychologySample (material)Scale (ratio)Developmental psychologyPsychiatryCognitionEpistemology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Miller et al. have challenged the findings of our two previous studies, based largely on the assumption that our findings are biased due to the clinical sample used. However, they fail to address the primary tenet of our studies, namely, that clinicians will obtain different scores on the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-IV (WAIS-IV) depending on whether Canadian or American norms are used. This reply seeks to provide empirical evidence supporting the existence of such score differences even when nonclinical samples are used, and identifies some of the clinical decisions that are potentially affected by choice of normative data.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.020
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.108
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.105

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0200.108
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.012
Scholarly communication0.0060.012
Open science0.0050.004
Research integrity0.0190.033
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.010

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 head0.088
GPT teacher head0.436
Teacher spread0.348 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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

Citations3
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Psychoeducational AssessmentSame topicCognitive Abilities and TestingFrench-language works237,207