MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1519629121 · doi:10.1177/1536867x0600600308

Mata Matters: Interactive use

2006· article· en· W1519629121 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
William Gould

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Stata Journal Promoting communications on statistics and Stata · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicProbability and Statistical Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsColumn (typography)Computer scienceQuarter (Canadian coin)Matrix (chemical analysis)Programming languageHistoryArchaeologyTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Mata is Stata's matrix language. In the Mata Matters column, we show how Mata can be used interactively to solve problems and as a programming language to add new features to Stata. In this quarter's column, we look at interactive use of Mata.

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.016
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.099
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.687
Threshold uncertainty score0.447

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0160.099
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.004
Bibliometrics0.0050.008
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0090.014
Open science0.0060.013
Research integrity0.0030.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.6870.536

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 head0.150
GPT teacher head0.415
Teacher spread0.265 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Stata Journal Promoting communications on statistics and StataSame topicProbability and Statistical ResearchFrench-language works237,207