MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

A Simple Test of Association for Contingency Tables with Multiple Column Responses

2000· article· en· W2086111854 on OpenAlexaff
Yves Decady, David R. Thomas

Bibliographic record

VenueBiometrics · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicSensory Analysis and Statistical Methods
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsContingency tableCategorical variableStatisticsTest (biology)Null hypothesisTest statisticChi-square testAssociation (psychology)Simple (philosophy)StatisticPearson's chi-squared testStatistical hypothesis testingMathematicsColumn (typography)BiometricsComputer scienceEconometricsArtificial intelligencePsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Loughin and Scherer (1998, Biometrics 54, 630-637) investigated tests of association in two-way tables when one of the categorical variables allows for multiple-category responses from individual respondents. Standard chi-squared tests are invalid in this case, and they developed a bootstrap test procedure that provides good control of test levels under the null hypothesis. This procedure and some others that have been proposed are computationally involved and are based on techniques that are relatively unfamiliar to many practitioners. In this paper, the methods introduced by Rao and Scott (1981, Journal of the American Statistical Association 76, 221-230) for analyzing complex survey data are used to develop a simple test based on a corrected chi-squared statistic.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.032
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.313
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.032
Threshold uncertainty score0.172

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0320.313
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0070.010
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.006
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0210.003

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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.245 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations49
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBiometricsSame topicSensory Analysis and Statistical MethodsFrench-language works237,207