MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2046562703 · doi:10.2307/3315066

Mixed‐scale models for survival/sacrifice experiments

2000· article· en· W2046562703 on OpenAlexaffvenue
S. N., Danielle Matthews, Daniel Krewski

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Statistics · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistical Methods in Clinical Trials
Canadian institutionsUniversity of OttawaUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOccultInterimEconometricsStatisticsSacrificeStatistical modelScale (ratio)Computer scienceMathematicsMedicinePathologyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Information derived from interim sacrifices or on cause of death is routinely used in the statistical analyses of carcinogenicity experiments involving occult tumours. The authors describe a simple semiparametric model which does not require this information. Natural deaths during the experiment and the usual terminal sacrifice provide sufficient information to ensure that the tumour incidence rates, which are of primary interest in occult‐tumour studies, can be estimated nonparametrically. The advantages of this semiparametric approach to the analysis of survival/sacrifice experiments are illustrated using data from a study on benzyl acetate conducted under the U. S. National Toxicology Program. The results derived compare favourably with those obtained using a previously published approach to the analysis of tumorigenicity data.

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)0.048
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.049
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.048
Threshold uncertainty score0.254

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0480.049
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.005
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0070.004
Research integrity0.0050.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.003

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 head0.624
GPT teacher head0.506
Teacher spread0.118 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations3
Published2000
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of StatisticsSame topicStatistical Methods in Clinical TrialsFrench-language works237,207