James E. Alcock Give the Null Hypothesis a Chance Reasons to Remain Doubtful about the Existence of Psi
Bibliographic record
Abstract
large ignored such experiences, while parapsychologists, on the other hand, give scant attention to normal explanations and focus instead on the paranormal possibilities. Thus, what should be of common interest to both psychologists and parapsychologists instead falls through the cracks, with one camp persuaded that the paranormal is real and the explanation Journal of Consciousness Studies, 10, No. 6--7, 2003, pp. 29--50 Correspondence: James E. Alcock, Dept. of Psychology, Glendon College, York University, Toronto, Canada. Email: jalcock@yorku.ca for many such experiences, and the other camp rejecting the paranormal while also ignoring the experience. As a result, parapsychologists and sceptical scientists most often speak to each other in a dialogue aux sourds, a dialogue of the deaf. Yet, it is always a good thing to try to build bridges in the hope of bringing intellectual protagonists together, and this special issue of the Journal of Consciousness Studies,which includes artic
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.049 | 0.326 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.024 | 0.005 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".