MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2099358577 · doi:10.2307/3316080

Statistical analyses for round robin interaction data

2001· article· en· W2099358577 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
Paramjit Gill, Tim B. Swartz

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Statistics · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicSensory Analysis and Statistical Methods
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser UniversityOkanagan University College
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsComputer scienceBayesian probabilityData scienceData typeData miningArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This paper considers the analysis of round robin interaction data whereby individuals from a group of subjects interact with one another, producing a pair of outcomes, one for each individual. The authors provide an overview of the various analyses applied to these types of data and extend the work in several directions. In particular, they provide a fully Bayesian analysis for such data and use a real data example for illustration purposes.

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)0.066
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.287
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 score0.066
Threshold uncertainty score0.348

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0660.287
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.004
Bibliometrics0.0040.005
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0010.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.001

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 head0.411
GPT teacher head0.406
Teacher spread0.005 · 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

Citations58
Published2001
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of StatisticsSame topicSensory Analysis and Statistical MethodsFrench-language works237,207