MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2029517174 · doi:10.1007/s11336-005-1295-9

Limited Information Goodness-of-fit Testing in Multidimensional Contingency Tables

2006· article· en· W2029517174 on OpenAlex

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.

Bibliographic record

VenuePsychometrika · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicPsychometric Methodologies and Testing
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGoodness of fitStatisticsContingency tableMathematicsStatistical hypothesis testingEstimatorNull hypothesisEconometricsApplied mathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We introduce a family of goodness-of-fit statistics for testing composite null hypotheses in multidimensional contingency tables. These statistics are quadratic forms in marginal residuals up to order r . They are asymptotically chi-square under the null hypothesis when parameters are estimated using any asymptotically normal consistent estimator. For a widely used item response model, when r is small and multidimensional tables are sparse, the proposed statistics have accurate empirical Type I errors, unlike Pearson’s X 2 . For this model in nonsparse situations, the proposed statistics are also more powerful than X 2 . In addition, the proposed statistics are asymptotically chi-square when applied to subtables, and can be used for a piecewise goodness-of-fit assessment to determine the source of misfit in poorly fitting models.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.202
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 score0.196
Threshold uncertainty score0.949

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.202
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.020
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.425
GPT teacher head0.436
Teacher spread0.011 · 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