MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2048699385 · doi:10.1037/1082-989x.5.3.370

How important is transient error in estimating reliability? Going beyond simulation studies.

2000· article· en· W2048699385 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

VenuePsychological Methods · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicOptimal Experimental Design Methods
Canadian institutionsUniversity of WinnipegUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReliability (semiconductor)Transient (computer programming)Observational errorStatisticsStandard errorRange (aeronautics)Error analysisReliability engineeringMathematicsComputer scienceAlgorithmApplied mathematicsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article introduces a procedure for estimating reliability in which equivalent halves of a given test are systematically created and then administered a few days apart so that transient error can be included in the error calculus. The procedure not only estimates complete reliability (taking into account both specific-factor error and transient error) but also can estimate partial reliability (taking into account only specific-factor error). Scores from 6 different measuring instruments were analyzed with the procedure. The results indicate that the magnitude of transient error in real data can range from nonexistent to very large. It follows that traditional reliability estimates, using nonstaggered procedures, are inflated to the extent that transient error is present.

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)0.023
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.967
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0230.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.395
GPT teacher head0.612
Teacher spread0.217 · 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