Optimal two‐stage reliability studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The intraclass correlation is often used to assess the reliability of a measurement system. There is a considerable literature devoted to optimizing the standard assessment plan in which a number of subjects are measured repeatedly. We propose a two-stage investigation, here called a leveraged plan (LP), where in Stage I, we measure a number of subjects once. Then in Stage II, we select a subset of subjects with extreme initial measurements for repeated measurement. For a fixed total number of measurements, we show that the optimal LP provides a more precise estimate of the intraclass correlation coefficient than does the optimal standard plan (SP). We provide a table for finding the optimal LP given the true intraclass correlation and a specified precision for the estimate. For a fixed total number of measurements N, a nearly optimal LP makes roughly N/2 measurements in Stage I and then selects roughly N/6 extreme subjects to re-measure thrice each in Stage II. We also compare optimal leveraged with optimal SPs when there is a limit on the number of times each subject can be re-measured.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".