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 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)0.385
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.805
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.385
Threshold uncertainty score0.758

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.3850.805
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.009
Bibliometrics0.0120.009
Science and technology studies0.0030.009
Scholarly communication0.0050.007
Open science0.0080.007
Research integrity0.0050.014
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.002

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 head0.358
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

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

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