MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1980708600 · doi:10.1007/s11136-013-0385-x

Pitfalls in subgroup analysis based on growth mixture models: a commentary on van Leeuwen et al. (2012)

2013· letter· en· W1980708600 on OpenAlexaff
Cameron N. McIntosh

Bibliographic record

VenueQuality of Life Research · 2013
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistical Methods and Bayesian Inference
Canadian institutionsPublic Safety Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInferenceContext (archaeology)Quality of Life ResearchSet (abstract data type)Subgroup analysisPsychologyEconometricsPublic healthSocial psychologyStatisticsComputer scienceMathematicsArtificial intelligenceMedicineHistory

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex
No abstract in any covered source. Its absence is recorded, not treated as a negative.

No abstract. This is not a gap in this database; OpenAlex has none either. 23.3% of the frame is in this state, and the screen finds HALF as much metaresearch here, so the absence is a measured bias rather than a missing field.

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)0.185
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.469
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.815
Threshold uncertainty score0.980

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1850.469
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.007
Bibliometrics0.0030.005
Science and technology studies0.0050.020
Scholarly communication0.0070.011
Open science0.0130.006
Research integrity0.0640.096
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.003

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.

Opus teacher head0.354
GPT teacher head0.498
Teacher spread0.144 · 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 designNot applicable
DomainMethods
GenreCommentary

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

Citations14
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueQuality of Life ResearchSame topicStatistical Methods and Bayesian InferenceFrench-language works237,207