MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2058826455 · doi:10.1080/08982112.2013.846065

Discussion of “The Statistical Evaluation of Categorical Measurements: ‘Simple Scales, but Treacherous Complexity Underneath’”

2013· article· en· W2058826455 on OpenAlexaff
Oana Danila, Robert J. MacKay, Stefan Steiner

Bibliographic record

VenueQuality Engineering · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicAdvanced Statistical Methods and Models
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCategorical variableSimple (philosophy)EconometricsImage (mathematics)StatisticsData scienceComputer scienceMathematicsArtificial intelligenceIndustrial engineeringOperations researchEngineeringEpistemologyPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The paper “The Statistical Evaluation of Categorical Measurements: Simple Scales, but Treacherous Complexity Underneath” by Jeroen de Mast, Thomas Akkerhuis, and Tashi Erdmann (2014), which we here...

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)0.119
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.373
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.119
Threshold uncertainty score0.629

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1190.373
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.003
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0040.012
Scholarly communication0.0060.010
Open science0.0070.005
Research integrity0.0150.027
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0220.012

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 head0.470
GPT teacher head0.476
Teacher spread0.006 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations0
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueQuality EngineeringSame topicAdvanced Statistical Methods and ModelsFrench-language works237,207