MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2030031047 · doi:10.1198/tast.2009.0001

Splitting a Predictor at the Upper Quarter or Third and the Lower Quarter or Third

2009· article· en· W2030031047 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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe American Statistician · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicDecision-Making and Behavioral Economics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsQuarter (Canadian coin)MathematicsStatisticsVotingLinear regressionEconometricsSimple (philosophy)Regression analysisSimple linear regressionRegressionGeographyPolitical sciencePhilosophyPolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A linear regression of y on x can be approximated by a simple difference: the average values of y corresponding to the highest quarter or third of x, minus the average values of y corresponding to the lowest quarter or third of x. A simple theoretical analysis, similar to analyses that have been done in psychometrics, shows this comparison to perform reasonably well, with 80%–90% efficiency compared to the regression if the predictor is uniformly or normally distributed. By discretizing x into three categories, we claw back about half the efficiency lost by the commonly used strategy of dichotomizing the predictor.We illustrate with the example that motivated our research: an analysis of income and voting which we had originally performed for a scholarly journal but then wanted to communicate to a general audience.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.735
Threshold uncertainty score0.910

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.369
Teacher spread0.318 · 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