With an API key set (see rbox_token()), each box costs two API requests:
its details and its file list. A peer-review link's passcode is sent along.
Without a key, or when the API refuses (ResearchBox limits how often the
same box can be requested per hour), the box's web page is read instead.
Arguments
- rb_url
an ResearchBox URL, or a table containing them (e.g., as created by
rbox_links())- id_col
the index or name of the column that contains ResearchBox URLs, if id is a table
- pb
a progress bar passed from another function
- cache
if
TRUE, reuse a previously cached result for a box already looked up (seerepo_info_cache_clear()) instead of asking ResearchBox again. Off by default.
Details
RB_license is the licence's SPDX identifier (such as "CC-BY-4.0") and
RB_public the date the box became public ("2023-06-09"), from either
route. The web page does not give the title, status, DOIs, licence link or
date of the last change (RB_title, RB_status, RB_paper_doi,
RB_zenodo_doi, RB_paper_authors, RB_license_url, RB_last_modified),
so these are NA when the page was read. The files column holds a table
of the box's files; from the API it also has each file's section, type,
description, extension, size and MD5 checksum.
Examples
# \donttest{
if (online("researchbox.org")) {
# get info on one box; the server can be busy, then this says why
tryCatch(rbox_info("https://researchbox.org/801"),
error = function(e) message(conditionMessage(e)))
}
#> rb_url
#> 1 https://researchbox.org/801
#> files
#> 1 READ ME.rtf, Participant Survey_Redacted.pdf, Informant Survey_Redacted.pdf, Emotional_Intelligence_Survey_-_Subject_Pool_-_Participants.qsf, Emotional_Intelligence_Survey_-_Subject_Pool_-_Informants.qsf, Anonymized Data.csv, Code for Analysis.R, AsPredicted (for peer-review only) #50249.pdf, Supplementary Materials 052923.docx, bH-5dQMZmhI5ViYMjrbeVSoBWFcJswBkrndeqpzUHVw, jOdsMx_HzIl7V08BQP3W6-uWTwR6-yhv6ecMmOfmU_c, aNdZSRkzFQ_71xe7v9X5nNjmD8nfAs0lPFGPfl_42es, U6XuLk3q0rcZYuRozxJWY8-zB4yzu7SWaNf779gojLM, 22OwIwjpkA-n8Y-rhQs3tLbt5_FOc9-DSroHiMRhkUU, 4D8RrLHYGnImIWLVcX6UZPlQSp-1mEFuCAFwSXgrweY, mkSMP3_ZqBs-b0SWOxvJMXRAQ8j5A_cNyyFm0U-Ec1c, PDef0LBdPrn5vsyc0k1Rda-2x6Am9YhCveBsDZaGEKA, CKTuoz9gllJ2TFFqLiz3NjIDB8YpumWqOaE0CA829Tk
#> box_id reference
#> 1 801 F6tUhkMOEyFFWILVAznzXfYs2e_quI7mtelwg8YPzKE
#> RB_target
#> 1 He JC, Côté S. (2023) 'Are Empathic People Better Adjusted? A Test of Competing Models of Empathic Accuracy and Intrapersonal and Interpersonal Facets of Adjustment Using Self- and Peer Reports'.Psychological Science. V34(9):955-967.\ndoi: 10.1177/09567976231185127\n\n\nCITING THIS RESEARCHBOX\nHe, J., & Côté, S. (2025). ResearchBox 801, 'Empathic Accuracy and Self Views on Adju', https://ResearchBox.org/801. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.15038649
#> RB_license RB_public
#> 1 CC-BY-4.0 2023-06-09
#> RB_authors
#> 1 Joyce He (joyce.he@anderson.ucla.edu)\nStéphane Côté (Stephane.cote@Rotman.Utoronto.Ca)
#> RB_abstract
#> 1 Are individuals adept at perceiving others’ emotions optimally adjusted? We extend past research by conducting a high-powered pre-registered study that comprehensively tests five theoretical models of empathic ability (i.e., emotion recognition ability) and self-views and intra- and interpersonal facets of adjustment in a sample of 1126 undergraduate students from Canada and 2205 informants. We obtained both self- and peer-reports of adjustment and controlled for cognitive abilities as a potential confounding variable. Empathic accuracy ability (but not self-views of that ability) was positively related to relationship satisfaction rated by both participants and informants. Self-views about empathic accuracy (but not actual empathic accuracy) were positively related to life satisfaction rated by both participants and informants. All associations held when controlling for cognitive abilities.
#> RB_title RB_status RB_paper_doi RB_zenodo_doi RB_paper_authors RB_license_url
#> 1 <NA> <NA> <NA> <NA> <NA> <NA>
#> RB_last_modified
#> 1 <NA>
# }