MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2107431407 · doi:10.1023/a:1021193827501

Conditional Independence Test for Weights-of-Evidence Modeling

2002· article· en· W2107431407 on OpenAlexaff
Frederik P. Agterberg, Qiuming Cheng

Bibliographic record

VenueNatural Resources Research · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicSoil Geostatistics and Mapping
Canadian institutionsYork UniversityGeological Survey of Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMathematicsIndependence (probability theory)StatisticsConditional independencePosterior probabilityEvent (particle physics)Conditional probabilityBinary numberStatistical hypothesis testingCombinatoricsAlgorithmArithmetic

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex
No abstract in any covered source. Its absence is recorded, not treated as a negative.

No abstract. This is not a gap in this database; OpenAlex has none either. 23.3% of the frame is in this state, and the screen finds HALF as much metaresearch here, so the absence is a measured bias rather than a missing field.

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)0.194
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.569
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.194
Threshold uncertainty score0.994

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1940.569
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0040.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0080.011
Bibliometrics0.0100.008
Science and technology studies0.0040.009
Scholarly communication0.0080.012
Open science0.0120.008
Research integrity0.0090.011
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0290.003

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 head0.202
GPT teacher head0.384
Teacher spread0.182 · 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.

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

Citations205
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueNatural Resources ResearchSame topicSoil Geostatistics and MappingFrench-language works237,207