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 OpenAlexaff
Alberto Maydeu‐Olivares, Harry Joe

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.

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)0.053
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.397
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.053
Threshold uncertainty score0.281

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0530.397
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0050.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.005
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.425
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

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

Citations327
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePsychometrikaSame topicPsychometric Methodologies and TestingFrench-language works237,207