MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1979334793 · doi:10.1111/1467-9884.00266

Statistical Inferences For Interobserver Agreement Studies With Nominal Outcome Data

2001· article· en· W1979334793 on OpenAlexafffund
Emma Bartfay, Allan Donner

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Royal Statistical Society Series D (The Statistician) · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicReliability and Agreement in Measurement
Canadian institutionsWestern UniversityQueen's University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsCategorical variableOutcome (game theory)Statistical inferenceStatisticsEconometricsStatistical hypothesis testingNominal levelInferenceMultiple comparisons problemFocus (optics)Computer scienceMathematicsArtificial intelligenceConfidence interval

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Most statistical methods for interobserver agreement studies involving categorical data focus on dichotomous outcome variables, whereas only a limited number of methods have been developed for nominal outcome data. As a consequence, researchers may resort to dichotomization simply to facilitate the analysis of data, hence discarding potentially valuable information. We present three inference procedures for hypothesis testing concerning interobserver agreement studies with nominal data. These procedures may be applied to studies characterized by two observers and three or more outcome categories. We illustrate these methods by using previously published data sets.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.706
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.358
GPT teacher head0.446
Teacher spread0.087 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
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

Citations11
Published2001
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Royal Statistical Society Series D (The Statistician)Same topicReliability and Agreement in MeasurementFrench-language works237,207