求助PDF
{"title":"Correction to \"Comparing theories with the Ising model of explanatory coherence\" by Maier et al. (2023).","authors":"","doi":"10.1037/met0000705","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Reports an error in \"Comparing theories with the Ising model of explanatory coherence\" by Maximilian Maier, Noah van Dongen and Denny Borsboom (<i>Psychological Methods</i>, Advanced Online Publication, Mar 02, 2023, np). In the article, the copyright attribution was incorrectly listed, and the Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 license disclaimer was incorrectly omitted from the author note. The correct copyright is \"© 2023 The Author(s),\" and the omitted disclaimer is below: Open Access funding provided by University College London: This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0; https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ 4.0). This license permits copying and redistributing the work in any medium or format, as well as adapting the material for any purpose, even commercially. (The following abstract of the original article appeared in record 2023-50323-001.) Theories are among the most important tools of science. Lewin (1943) already noted \"There is nothing as practical as a good theory.\" Although psychologists discussed problems of theory in their discipline for a long time, weak theories are still widespread in most subfields. One possible reason for this is that psychologists lack the tools to systematically assess the quality of their theories. Thagard (1989) developed a computational model for formal theory evaluation based on the concept of explanatory coherence. However, there are possible improvements to Thagard's (1989) model and it is not available in software that psychologists typically use. Therefore, we developed a new implementation of explanatory coherence based on the Ising model. We demonstrate the capabilities of this new Ising model of Explanatory Coherence (IMEC) on several examples from psychology and other sciences. In addition, we implemented it in the R-package IMEC to assist scientists in evaluating the quality of their theories in practice. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":20782,"journal":{"name":"Psychological methods","volume":"29 3","pages":"602"},"PeriodicalIF":7.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Psychological methods","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000705","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
引用
批量引用
Abstract
Reports an error in "Comparing theories with the Ising model of explanatory coherence" by Maximilian Maier, Noah van Dongen and Denny Borsboom (Psychological Methods , Advanced Online Publication, Mar 02, 2023, np). In the article, the copyright attribution was incorrectly listed, and the Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 license disclaimer was incorrectly omitted from the author note. The correct copyright is "© 2023 The Author(s)," and the omitted disclaimer is below: Open Access funding provided by University College London: This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0; https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ 4.0). This license permits copying and redistributing the work in any medium or format, as well as adapting the material for any purpose, even commercially. (The following abstract of the original article appeared in record 2023-50323-001.) Theories are among the most important tools of science. Lewin (1943) already noted "There is nothing as practical as a good theory." Although psychologists discussed problems of theory in their discipline for a long time, weak theories are still widespread in most subfields. One possible reason for this is that psychologists lack the tools to systematically assess the quality of their theories. Thagard (1989) developed a computational model for formal theory evaluation based on the concept of explanatory coherence. However, there are possible improvements to Thagard's (1989) model and it is not available in software that psychologists typically use. Therefore, we developed a new implementation of explanatory coherence based on the Ising model. We demonstrate the capabilities of this new Ising model of Explanatory Coherence (IMEC) on several examples from psychology and other sciences. In addition, we implemented it in the R-package IMEC to assist scientists in evaluating the quality of their theories in practice. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).
对 Maier 等人(2023) "用解释一致性的伊辛模型比较理论 "的更正。
报告 Maximilian Maier、Noah van Dongen 和 Denny Borsboom 所著《用解释一致性的 Ising 模型比较理论》（《心理学方法》，高级在线出版，2023 年 3 月 2 日，np）中的一处错误。文章中的版权归属有误，作者注释中的知识共享 CC BY 4.0 许可免责声明有误。正确的版权归属是"© 2023 The Author(s)"，省略的免责声明如下：开放存取资金由伦敦大学学院提供：本作品采用知识共享 署名 4.0 国际许可协议 (CC BY 4.0; https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ 4.0) 进行许可。该许可允许以任何媒介或格式复制和重新发布作品，以及出于任何目的（甚至是商业目的）改编材料。(以下为 2023-50323-001 号记录中的原文摘要）。理论是科学最重要的工具之一。卢因（1943 年）已经指出："没有什么比好的理论更实用了"。尽管心理学家们对本学科的理论问题讨论了很长时间，但在大多数分支领域，理论薄弱的现象仍然普遍存在。其中一个可能的原因是，心理学家缺乏系统评估其理论质量的工具。塔加德（Thagard，1989 年）基于解释一致性的概念，开发了一个用于正式理论评估的计算模型。然而，Thagard（1989 年）的模型还有可能改进，而且心理学家通常使用的软件中也没有这个模型。因此，我们根据伊辛模型开发了一种新的解释一致性实施方法。我们通过心理学和其他科学领域的几个例子，展示了这种新的解释一致性伊辛模型（IMEC）的功能。此外，我们还在 R 软件包 IMEC 中实现了这一模型，以帮助科学家在实践中评估其理论的质量。(PsycInfo 数据库记录 (c) 2024 APA，保留所有权利）。
本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
分享
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
扫码关注我们
