Statistical Validity of Using Ratio Variables in Human Kinetics Research
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
The purposes of this study were to investigate the validity of the simple ratio and three alternative deflation models and examine how the variation of the numerator and denominator variables affects the reliability of a ratio variable. A simple ratio and three alternative deflation models were fitted to four empirical data sets, and common criteria were applied to determine the best model for deflation. Intraclass correlation was used to examine the component effect on the reliability of a ratio variable. The results indicate that the validity, of a deflation model depends on the statistical characteristics of the particular component variables used, and an optimal deflation model for all ratio variables may not exist. Therefore, it is recommended that different models be fitted to each empirical data set to determine the best deflation model. It was found that the reliability of a simple ratio is affected by the coefficients of variation and the within- and between-trial correlations between the numerator and denominator variables. It was recommended that researchers should compute the reliability of the derived ratio scores and not assume that strong reliabilities in the numerator and denominator measures automatically lead to high reliability in the ratio measures.
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 | 0.008 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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