Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36471211›Full record

ArticleBehavior research methods2024

Using agreement probability to study differences in types of concepts and conceptualizers.

Enrique Canessa, Sergio E Chaigneau, Sebastián Moreno

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Behavior research methods, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 29% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Enrique CanessaCenter for Cognition Research (CINCO), School of Psychology, Universidad Adolfo Ibáñez, Av. Presidente Errázuriz 3328, Las Condes, Santiago, Chile. ecanessa@uai.cl.
Sergio E ChaigneauCenter for Cognition Research (CINCO), School of Psychology, Universidad Adolfo Ibáñez, Av. Presidente Errázuriz 3328, Las Condes, Santiago, Chile.
Sebastián MorenoFaculty of Engineering and Science, Universidad Adolfo Ibáñez, Av. P. Hurtado 750, Lote H, Viña del Mar, Chile.
Adolfo Ibáñez University · CL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Agreement probability p(a) is a homogeneity measure of lists of properties produced by participants in a Property Listing Task (PLT) for a concept. Agreement probability's mathematical properties allow a rich analysis of property-based descriptions. To illustrate, we use p(a) to delve into the differences between concrete and abstract concepts in sighted and blind populations. Results show that concrete concepts are more homogeneous within sighted and blind groups than abstract ones (i.e., exhibit a higher p(a) than abstract ones) and that concrete concepts in the blind group are less homogeneous than in the sighted sample. This supports the idea that listed properties for concrete concepts should be more similar across subjects due to the influence of visual/perceptual information on the learning process. In contrast, abstract concepts are learned based mainly on social and linguistic information, which exhibit more variability among people, thus, making the listed properties more dissimilar across subjects. Relative to abstract concepts, the difference in p(a) between sighted and blind is not statistically significant. Though this is a null result, and should be considered with care, it is expected because abstract concepts should be learned by paying attention to the same social and linguistic input in both, blind and sighted, and thus, there is no reason to expect that the respective lists of properties should differ. Finally, we used p(a) to classify concrete and abstract concepts with a good level of certainty. All these analyses suggest that p(a) can be fruitfully used to study data obtained in a PLT.

Indexed as

Concept FormationLearningBlindnessHumansAgreement probabilityConcrete/abstract conceptsProperty listing taskSighted/blind populations

Identifiers

PMID36471211
OpenAlexW4310781969

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.