EXPLORING RELAPSE IN THE HUMAN LABORATORY: NOTES FROM A SYMPOSIUM
Bibliographic record
Abstract
“Relapse” broadly refers to the recurrence of pre-intervention behavior patterns when some aspect of the intervention is changed. Because relapse poses a challenge to the long-term maintenance of behavior-analytic treatment effects, a considerable amount of basic, translational, and applied research has been dedicated to understanding why it happens and what can be done to prevent it. A growing proportion of that research is conducted with humans in laboratory settings. Human laboratory analyses of relapse, however, come packaged with nuances that may not be immediately obvious to readers or researchers who aim to establish new lines of related research. This project is a symposium of sorts that focuses specifically on these nuances. Four researchers were asked to reflect on their experiences conducting laboratory analyses of relapse with human participants. The goal of this project was to provide information that may be helpful to researchers who may be interested in developing lines of human-laboratory research on relapse. This information included idiosyncratic factors researchers consider when studying relapse of human behavior in the laboratory as well as the strengths and weaknesses of various laboratory methods for doing so. The researchers’ perspectives are synthesized in a post-symposium discussion. We encourage further development of a tight-knit community of human-laboratory relapse researchers to help overcome barriers to research in this context.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".