Research Methods in Psychology (Edition 2)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Psychology, like most other sciences, has its own set of tools to investigate the important research questions of its field. Unlike other sciences, psychology is a relatively new field with methods and practices that are evolving at a rapid rate. With this textbook, we introduce students to the fundamental principles of what it is like to think like a psychology researcher. We also hope to connect with the Canadian audience to show them the fantastic research being generated in Canada as well as provide them with an accurate picture of the Canadian context for ethical human research. This textbook is an adaptation of one written by Paul C. Price (California State University, Fresno). The first Canadian edition (published in 2013) was authored by Rajiv S. Jhangiani (Kwantlen Polytechnic University). This second Canadian edition was co-authored by Rajiv S. Jhangiani (Kwantlen Polytechnic University) and I-Chant A. Chiang (Quest University Canada).
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 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 | 0.011 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.038 | 0.018 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.014 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.016 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.111 | 0.024 |
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; both teacher heads 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".