MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1607630103 · doi:10.1348/2044-8317.002007

Bootstrap standard error and confidence intervals for the correlations corrected for indirect range restriction

2010· article· en· W1607630103 on OpenAlexaff
Johnson Ching‐Hong Li, Wai Chan, Ying Cui

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicAdvanced Statistical Methods and Models
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConfidence intervalStatisticsStandard errorEstimatorRange (aeronautics)MathematicsMonte Carlo methodCorrelation coefficientSample size determinationCorrelationRobust confidence intervalsCDF-based nonparametric confidence intervalCoverage probability

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The standard Pearson correlation coefficient, r, is a biased estimator of the population correlation coefficient, ρ(XY) , when predictor X and criterion Y are indirectly range-restricted by a third variable Z (or S). Two correction algorithms, Thorndike's (1949) Case III, and Schmidt, Oh, and Le's (2006) Case IV, have been proposed to correct for the bias. However, to our knowledge, the two algorithms did not provide a procedure to estimate the associated standard error and confidence intervals. This paper suggests using the bootstrap procedure as an alternative. Two Monte Carlo simulations were conducted to systematically evaluate the empirical performance of the proposed bootstrap procedure. The results indicated that the bootstrap standard error and confidence intervals were generally accurate across simulation conditions (e.g., selection ratio, sample size). The proposed bootstrap procedure can provide a useful alternative for the estimation of the standard error and confidence intervals for the correlation corrected for indirect range restriction.

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)0.070
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.495
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.070
Threshold uncertainty score0.369

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0700.495
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0060.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.004
Open science0.0050.003
Research integrity0.0040.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.162
GPT teacher head0.471
Teacher spread0.310 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations22
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBritish Journal of Mathematical and Statistical PsychologySame topicAdvanced Statistical Methods and ModelsFrench-language works237,207