PSYCHOLOGY 4850-51E HONORS THESIS PROJECT 2011-2012
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Becoming a competent researcher requires learning the ethical responsibilities that are an inherent part of conducting research, such as treating participants humanely, fairly, and with respect. These responsibilities have been incorporated in the ethical research guidelines endorsed by the Canadian and American Psychological Associations (e.g., see CPA Canadian Code of Ethics for Psychologists at www.cpa.ca) and also by the major research funding agencies in Canada (e.g., see the Tri-council Policy Statement and the Guidelines for the Ethics Review Boards at UWO www.uwo.ca/research/ethics). GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS. An ethics review is an obligatory part of any research project. As such, you may not begin collecting data until the research project you are working on for your thesis has received ethics approval. Please note that you must go over your ethics review protocol with your supervisor, as your supervisor is ultimately responsible for all ethical aspects of your thesis research project. Provide your supervisor with sufficient time to read your ethics protocol and indicate any necessary information which should be incorporated in your submitted protocol. Have your supervisor indicate ethical approval by signing this protocol directly below. It is your responsibility to ensure that you have obtained your supervisor's approval prior to handing in your completed ethics protocol by Oct. 21, 2011 (1pm) to the Psych 4850-51 secretary, Beata Jaroslawski in SSC Rm 7418. Please use the Human Ethics Review Checklist (on the Psych 4850/51 website) to review your completed protocol, prior to handing it in. Protocols handed in before this due date will be reviewed as soon as possible by the course coordinator to expedite thesis progress. Your submitted ethics protocol will remain on file with Dr. Kuiper. As such, make a copy of your completed protocol after it has been signed by yourself and your supervisor, as you will need this copy for further reference and use.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.079 | 0.012 |
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".