MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1975210746 · doi:10.1016/j.cct.2003.08.010

A simple alternative confidence interval for the difference between two proportions

2004· article· en· W1975210746 on OpenAlexafffund
Guangyong Zou, Allan Donner

Bibliographic record

VenueControlled Clinical Trials · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistical Methods in Clinical Trials
Canadian institutionsWestern UniversityRobarts Clinical Trials
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsConfidence intervalMathematicsSimple (philosophy)StatisticsSimplicityInterval estimationInterval (graph theory)Tolerance intervalTransformation (genetics)AlgorithmCombinatorics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex
No abstract in any covered source. Its absence is recorded, not treated as a negative.

No abstract. This is not a gap in this database; OpenAlex has none either. 23.3% of the frame is in this state, and the screen finds HALF as much metaresearch here, so the absence is a measured bias rather than a missing field.

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)0.139
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.563
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: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.139
Threshold uncertainty score0.737

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1390.563
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.004
Bibliometrics0.0070.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.004
Scholarly communication0.0060.006
Open science0.0060.003
Research integrity0.0080.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.002

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 head0.858
GPT teacher head0.698
Teacher spread0.160 · 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

Citations18
Published2004
Admission routes2
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueControlled Clinical TrialsSame topicStatistical Methods in Clinical TrialsFrench-language works237,207