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 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.567
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.088
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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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