A starting point for discussion
The idea
The authors also report results for models trained on random samples of 5%, 25%, and 75% of participants, in addition to the 50% training sample used for the main test of individual predictions.
Place in the reasoning
AI assessment · Connected to reasoning
Reports that additional training-sample sizes were examined but supplies no results for those tests.
Different prediction checks reveal different limits
The existence of other sample-size tests provides methodological context but, without their results, does not establish prediction reliability or its dependence on sample size.
What this means and why it matters
What this means
The study includes additional analyses using different shares of the participant group to train the models.
Why it matters
These analyses address how results vary with training-sample size. The supplied passage does not give their outcomes.
Conditions & assumptions
Source coverage: Full readable text of the retrieved 37-page research draft, including references and appendices. Figures are not independently interpreted. The authors say that results for models further trained on random samples of 5%, 25%, and 75% of participants appear in Supplementary Appendix E, an additional section of the paper.
Questions this connects to
AI-suggested relationships. Authors have not necessarily responded to one another.
How strong is this claim?
AI assessment · not a probability or a final resolution
The passage directly states that these results for different training-sample sizes appear elsewhere in the paper.
See the assessment in detail
The passage explicitly names the three sample sizes and points to the reported analyses.