MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2023717335 · doi:10.1007/s11336-010-9165-5

A General Family of Limited Information Goodness-of-Fit Statistics for Multinomial Data

2010· article· en· W2023717335 on OpenAlexaff
Harry Joe, Alberto Maydeu‐Olivares

Bibliographic record

VenuePsychometrika · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistical Methods and Bayesian Inference
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMultinomial distributionMathematicsStatisticsGoodness of fitQuadratic equationChi-square testSquare (algebra)Binary numberNull hypothesisBinary dataStatistical hypothesis testingApplied mathematicsArithmetic

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Maydeu-Olivares and Joe (J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 100:1009–1020, 2005; Psychometrika 71:713–732, 2006) introduced classes of chi-square tests for (sparse) multidimensional multinomial data based on low-order marginal proportions. Our extension provides general conditions under which quadratic forms in linear functions of cell residuals are asymptotically chi-square. The new statistics need not be based on margins, and can be used for one-dimensional multinomials. We also provide theory that explains why limited information statistics have good power, regardless of sparseness. We show how quadratic-form statistics can be constructed that are more powerful than X2 and yet, have approximate chi-square null distribution in finite samples with large models. Examples with models for truncated count data and binary item response data are used to illustrate the theory.

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)0.044
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.184
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.044
Threshold uncertainty score0.230

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0440.184
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.003
Bibliometrics0.0060.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.005
Scholarly communication0.0030.007
Open science0.0040.004
Research integrity0.0030.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.002

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 head0.216
GPT teacher head0.441
Teacher spread0.225 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations52
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePsychometrikaSame topicStatistical Methods and Bayesian InferenceFrench-language works237,207