MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2066104795 · doi:10.1037/a0029946

Bootstrap confidence intervals for the mean correlation corrected for Case IV range restriction: A more adequate procedure for meta-analysis.

2012· article· en· W2066104795 on OpenAlexaff
Johnson Ching‐Hong Li, Ying Cui, Wai Chan

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Applied Psychology · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicMeta-analysis and systematic reviews
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConfidence intervalStatisticsPercentileNonparametric statisticsRobust confidence intervalsCDF-based nonparametric confidence intervalCorrelationRange (aeronautics)MathematicsMonte Carlo methodMeta-analysisMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this study, we proposed to use the nonparametric bootstrap procedure to construct the confidence interval for the mean correlation r corrected for Case IV range restriction in meta-analysis (i.e., ; Hunter, Schmidt, & Le, 2006). A comprehensive Monte Carlo study was conducted to evaluate the accuracy of the parametric confidence interval and 3 nonparametric bootstrap confidence intervals for r(c4). Of the 4 intervals, our results showed that the bootstrap bias-corrected and accelerated percentile interval (BCaI) yielded the most accurate results across different data situations. In addition, the mean-corrected correlation r(c4) was found to be more accurate than the uncorrected estimate. Implications of the mean-corrected correlation r(c4) and BCaI in organizational studies are also discussed.

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 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)0.070
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.972
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0700.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.007
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.796
GPT teacher head0.574
Teacher spread0.221 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations5
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Applied PsychologySame topicMeta-analysis and systematic reviewsFrench-language works237,207