MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Effect Displays for Multinomial and Proportional-Odds Logit Models

2006· article· en· W2117370753 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueSociological Methodology · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistical Methods and Bayesian Inference
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMultinomial logistic regressionOddsCategorical variablePolytomous Rasch modelLogitEconometricsMultinomial distributionStatisticsMultinomial probitGeneralized linear modelLinear modelMixed logitLogistic regressionComputer scienceMathematicsItem response theory

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An “effect display” is a graphical or tabular summary of a statistical model based on high-order terms in the model. Effect displays have previously been defined by Fox (1987, 2003) for generalized linear models (including linear models). Such displays are especially compelling for complicated models—for example, those including interactions or polynomial terms. This paper extends effect displays to models commonly used for polytomous categorical response variables: the multinomial logit model and the proportional-odds logit model. Determining point estimates of effects for these models is a straightforward extension of results for the generalized linear model. Estimating sampling variation for effects on the probability scale in the multinomial and proportional-odds logit models is more challenging, however, and we use the delta method to derive approximate standard errors. Finally, we provide software for effect displays in the R statistical computing environment.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.101
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.290
GPT teacher head0.473
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