MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1976472169 · doi:10.1177/0020715204048308

Comparing Social Groups: Wald Statistics for Testing Equality Among Multiple Logit Models

2004· article· en· W1976472169 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Tim Futing Liao

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Comparative Sociology · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicAdvanced Causal Inference Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWald testStatisticStatisticsEconometricsLikelihood-ratio testTest statisticScore testLogistic regressionLogitMathematicsTest (biology)Statistical hypothesis testing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Social scientists often study the differential effects of explanatory variables among multiple social groups such as race, ethnic group, and nation.This paper examines the Wald test for testing equality of logit coefficients from models of multiple social groups. I propose a Wald statistic that can perform some joint tests of group comparisons that the usual likelihood ratio test cannot. Two examples apply the Wald statistic for testing various hypotheses, and show that the Wald test is flexible and straightforward for making comparisons across social groups, and that the proposed Wald test may find wide applications in the social sciences.

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 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)0.001
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.337
Threshold uncertainty score0.718

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.533
GPT teacher head0.512
Teacher spread0.021 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

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

Citations66
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Comparative SociologySame topicAdvanced Causal Inference TechniquesFrench-language works237,207