A Simple Method for Estimating a Regression Model for κ Between a Pair of Raters
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary Agreement studies commonly occur in medical research, for example, in the review of X-rays by radiologists, blood tests by a panel of pathologists and the evaluation of psychopathology by a panel of raters. In these studies, often two observers rate the same subject for some characteristic with a discrete number of levels. The κ-coefficient is a popular measure of agreement between the two raters. The κ-coefficient may depend on covariates, i.e. characteristics of the raters and/or the subjects being rated. Our research was motivated by two agreement problems. The first is a study of agreement between a pastor and a co-ordinator of Christian education on whether they feel that the congregation puts enough emphasis on encouraging members to work for social justice (yes versus no). We wish to model the κ-coefficient as a function of covariates such as political orientation (liberal versus conservative) of the pastor and co-ordinator. The second example is a spousal education study, in which we wish to model the κ-coefficient as a function of covariates such as the highest degree of the father of the wife and the father of the husband. We propose a simple method to estimate the regression model for the κ-coefficient, which consists of two logistic (or multinomial logistic) regressions and one linear regression for binary data. The estimates can be easily obtained in any generalized linear model software program.
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 | 0.129 | 0.310 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.030 | 0.017 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".