Evaluation of an adjusted chi‐square statistic as applied to observational studies involving clustered binary data
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A simple adjustment to the Pearson chi-square test has been proposed for comparing proportions estimated from clustered binary observations. However, the assumptions needed to assure the validity of this test have not yet been thoroughly addressed. These assumptions will hold for experimental comparisons, but could be violated for some observational comparisons. In this paper we investigate the conditions under which the adjusted chi-square statistic is valid and examine its performance when these assumptions are violated. We also introduce some alternative test statistics that do not require these assumptions. The test statistics considered are then compared through simulation and an example presented based on real data. The simulation study shows that the adjusted chi-square statistic generally produces empirical type I errors close to nominal under the assumption of a common intracluster correlation coefficient. Even if the intracluster correlations are different, the adjusted chi-square statistic performs well when the groups have equal numbers of clusters.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.050 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it