Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary Various bootstraps have been proposed for bootstrapping clustered data from one-way arrays. The simulation results in the literature suggest that some of these methods work quite well in practice; the theoretical results are limited and more mixed in their conclusions. For example, McCullagh reached negative conclusions about the use of non-parametric bootstraps for one-way arrays. The purpose of this paper is to extend our understanding of the issues by discussing the effect of different ways of modelling clustered data, the criteria for successful bootstraps used in the literature and extending the theory from functions of the sample mean to include functions of the between and within sums of squares and non-parametric bootstraps to include model-based bootstraps. We determine that the consistency of variance estimates for a bootstrap method depends on the choice of model with the residual bootstrap giving consistency under the transformation model whereas the cluster bootstrap gives consistent estimates under both the transformation and the random-effect model. In addition we note that the criteria based on the distribution of the bootstrap observations are not really useful in assessing consistency.
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.
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 | 0.013 | 0.075 |
| 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 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it