MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Inference Procedures for Assessing Interobserver Agreement among Multiple Raters

2001· article· en· W2018205196 on OpenAlex
Mekibib Altaye, Allan Dormer, Neil Klar

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueBiometrics · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicReliability and Agreement in Measurement
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsStatisticsGoodness of fitMathematicsNominal levelConfidence intervalBinomial distributionRange (aeronautics)InferenceSample size determinationBinomial (polynomial)Multiple comparisons problemStatistical inferenceComputer scienceArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We propose a new procedure for constructing inferences about a measure of interobserver agreement in studies involving a binary outcome and multiple raters. The proposed procedure, based on a chi-square goodness-of-fit test as applied to the correlated binomial model (Bahadur, 1961, in Studies in Item Analysis and Prediction, 158-176), is an extension of the goodness-of-fit procedure developed by Donner and Eliasziw (1992, Statistics in Medicine 11, 1511-1519) for the case of two raters. The new procedure is shown to provide confidence-interval coverage levels that are close to nominal over a wide range of parameter combinations. The procedure also provides a sample-size formula that may be used to determine the required number of subjects and raters for such studies.

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 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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.024
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.120
Threshold uncertainty score0.984

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.024
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.005
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.334
GPT teacher head0.431
Teacher spread0.097 · 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