MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2029374995 · doi:10.1037/0021-9010.92.5.1414

Assessing dissimilarity relations under missing data conditions: Evidence from computer simulations.

2007· article· en· W2029374995 on OpenAlexafffund
Natalie J. Allen, David Stanley, Helen Williams, Sarah J. Ross

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Applied Psychology · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGender Diversity and Inequality
Canadian institutionsUniversity of GuelphWestern University
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsPsychologyOutcome (game theory)Missing dataSocial psychologyStatisticsEconometricsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The extensive research examining relations between group member dissimilarity and outcome measures has yielded inconsistent results. In the present research, the authors used computer simulations to examine the impact that a methodological feature of such research, participant nonresponse, can have on dissimilarity-outcome relations. Results suggest that using only survey responders to calculate dissimilarity typically results in underestimation of true dissimilarity effects and that these effects can occur even when response rates are high.

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)0.227
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.788
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.227
Threshold uncertainty score0.953

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.2270.788
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.004
Scholarly communication0.0030.005
Open science0.0030.004
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.429
GPT teacher head0.496
Teacher spread0.066 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations2,007
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Applied PsychologySame topicGender Diversity and InequalityFrench-language works237,207