A general goodness‐of‐fit approach for inference procedures concerning the kappa statistic
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The kappa statistic is frequently used as a measure of agreement among two or more raters. Although considerable research on statistical inferences for this statistic has been published for the case of two raters and a binary outcome, relatively little work has appeared on inference problems for the case of multiple raters and/or polytomous nominal outcome categories. In this paper we propose a new procedure for constructing inferences for the kappa statistic that may be applied to this general case. The procedure is based on a chi-square goodness-of-fit test as applied to the Dirichlet multinomial model, and is a natural extension of previously proposed procedures that apply to more restricted cases. A simulation study shows that the new procedure provides confidence interval coverage levels and type I error rates close to nominal over a wide range of parameter combinations. We also present a sample size formula which may be used to determine the required number of subjects and raters for a given number of outcome categories.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.199 | 0.559 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.014 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.003 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".