MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1518873647 · doi:10.1177/070674370705200210

What's under the ROC? An Introduction to Receiver Operating Characteristics Curves

2007· article· en· W1518873647 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal of Psychiatry · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSepsis Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsCentre for Addiction and Mental HealthBaycrest HospitalUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReceiver operating characteristicCut-pointFalse positive paradoxPoint (geometry)StatisticsMathematicsFalse positives and false negativesComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

It is often necessary to dichotomize a continuous scale to separate respondents into normal and abnormal groups. However, because the distributions of the scores in these 2 groups most often overlap, any cut point that is chosen will result in 2 types of errors: false negatives (that is, abnormal cases judged to be normal) and false positives (that is, normal cases placed in the abnormal group). Changing the cut point will alter the numbers of erroneous judgments but will not eliminate the problem. A technique called receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves allows us to determine the ability ofa test to discriminate between groups, to choose the optimal cut point, and to compare the performance of 2 or more tests. We discuss how to calculate and compareROC curves and the factors that must be considered in choosing an optimal cut point.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.463
Threshold uncertainty score0.836

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.045
GPT teacher head0.325
Teacher spread0.280 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it