Planning and analysis of measurement reliability studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the traditional plan for assessing the reliability of a measurement system, a number of raters each measure the same group of subjects. If the system has a large number of raters, we recommend a new set of plans that has two advantages over the traditional plan. First, the proposed plans provide greater precision for estimating the intraclass correlation coefficient with the same total number of measurements. Second, the plans are flexible and can be adapted to constraints on the number of times any subject can be assessed or the number of times any rater can make an assessment. We provide a simple tool for planning a reliability study, access to the software for the planning in the case where there are constraints and an example to demonstrate the analysis of data from the proposed plans. The Canadian Journal of Statistics 39: 344–355; 2011 © 2011 Statistical Society of Canada
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.383 | 0.581 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.014 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.004 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".