Combining multi‐observer information in partially rank‐ordered judgment post‐stratified and ranked set samples
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
Abstract This paper develops two sampling designs to create artificially stratified samples. These designs use a small set of experimental units to determine their relative ranks without measurement. In each set, the units are ranked by all available observers (rankers), with ties whenever the units cannot be ranked with high confidence. The rankings from all the observers are then combined in a meaningful way to create a single weight measure. This weight measure is used to create judgment strata in both designs. The first design constructs the strata through judgment post‐stratification after the data has been collected. The second design creates the strata before any measurements are made on the experimental units. The paper constructs estimators and confidence intervals, and develops testing procedures for the mean and median of the underlying distribution based on these sampling designs. We show that the proposed sampling designs provide a substantial improvement over their competitor designs in the literature. The Canadian Journal of Statistics 41: 304–324; 2013 © 2013 Statistical Society of Canada
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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