MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6925233799 · doi:10.17605/osf.io/96v8u

PSYC 6000 Lab 1 Assignment Derek

2023· other· en· W6925233799 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueOpen Science Framework · 2023
Typeother
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicElectronic Health Records Systems
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSample (material)Big dataVisualizationSection (typography)Filter (signal processing)Sample size determinationSoftwareCoding (social sciences)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This is an assignment for PSYC 6000 Advanced Stats, offered at Memorial University of Newfoundland (MUN) , St. John's, NL, Canada. In this assignment, we will be introduced to the basics of statistics in Psychology. All the data used in this assignment are fictional and are meant for educational purposes only. The assignment revolves around the Big 5 categories of personality and is divided into two main sections. In section 1, we will be using Jamovi for the following: -Reverse coding some data sets (the transform option in Jamovi) -Filtering data from participants above 60 years of age (the filter option in Jamovi) -Conducting and reporting descriptives statistics on the age and gender of participants, using the filtered data -Calculating the mean for each of the Big 5 categories -Provide a visualization for each of the categories and a description for their respective data distribution -Provide a visualization for each of the categories but using age as an independent variable and reporting a description for their respective data distribution In section 2, G*Power software will be used for the following: -Computing the sample size needed for a power of 0.95 to detect a small effect, at an alpha level of .01 -Changing some of the parameters to obtain a smaller sample size and reporting what we did -Provide an explanation on which compromises are required to obtain a smaller required sample size in terms of statistical power in Psychology In this assignment, a fictitious sample of 246 participants (after filtering the false data) was collected and used for this 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 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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Open science, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesResearch integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0060.002
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0190.037

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 head0.125
GPT teacher head0.542
Teacher spread0.417 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOpen Science FrameworkSame topicElectronic Health Records SystemsFrench-language works237,207