MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2051834255 · doi:10.1002/asmb.917

A robust treatment of a dose–response study

2011· article· en· W2051834255 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

VenueApplied Stochastic Models in Business and Industry · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicOptimal Experimental Design Methods
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRobustificationFlexibility (engineering)Link (geometry)Function (biology)Range (aeronautics)Computer scienceEconometricsMathematical optimizationMathematicsStatisticsEngineeringCombinatorics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We give a description of the steps leading to a robustification of a dose–response study. The original experiment was designed and described by Rosenberger and Grill (1997) and has since been discussed by several other groups of researchers. Our robustification consists of redesigning the experiment so as to build in flexibility over a range of possible link functions, including the logistic link assumed by the original experimenters. We consider as well an asymptotic Neyman–Pearson test of the validity of the assumed link function.Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.470
Threshold uncertainty score0.762

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.389
GPT teacher head0.396
Teacher spread0.007 · 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