MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1975836040 · doi:10.1177/0146621602239476

Determining the Significance of Correlations Corrected for Unreliability and Range Restriction

2003· article· en· W1975836040 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.

Bibliographic record

VenueApplied Psychological Measurement · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicAdvanced Statistical Methods and Models
Canadian institutionsThompson Rivers University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStatisticsMathematicsSampling (signal processing)Variance (accounting)Range (aeronautics)Sample size determinationMonte Carlo methodPopulationCorrelation coefficientCorrelationPopulation varianceSample (material)DemographyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A new asymptotic formula for estimating the sampling variance of a correlation coefficient corrected for unreliability and range restriction was proposed. A Monte Carlo assessment of the new sampling variance formula has resulted in the following conclusions. First, the formula-based (analytical) sampling variances were very close to the empirically derived sampling variances based on 5,000 replications. Second, the sampling variance formula was quite robust against committing Type I errors. Third, the statistical power was low to moderate in distinguishing between two unattenuated and unrestricted population correlations. Fourth, the new formula produced smaller sampling variances; was closer to nominal alpha levels; and was more powerful when sample size increased, when the population correlation coefficient increased, when range restriction was less severe, and when both the criterion and predictor reliabilities increased.

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)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.715
Threshold uncertainty score0.378

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
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 head0.324
GPT teacher head0.434
Teacher spread0.111 · 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