MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2136733697

Estimating agreement coefficients from sample survey data

2012· article· en· W2136733697 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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueSurvey methodology · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicReliability and Agreement in Measurement
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsJackknife resamplingStatisticsConcordanceMathematicsCohen's kappaStandard errorCorrelation coefficientVariance (accounting)Sampling (signal processing)Sample (material)Concordance correlation coefficientLinearizationComputer scienceMedicineNonlinear systemAccounting
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We present a generalized estimating equations approach for estimating the concordance correlation coefficient and the kappa coefficient from sample survey data. The estimates and their accompanying standard error need to correctly account for the sampling design. Weighted measures of the concordance correlation coefficient and the kappa coefficient, along with the variance of these measures accounting for the sampling design, are presented. We use the Taylor series linearization method and the jackknife procedure for estimating the standard errors of the resulting parameter estimates. Body measurement and oral health data from the Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey are used to illustrate this methodology.

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)0.276
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.314
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.252
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.2760.314
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.873
GPT teacher head0.555
Teacher spread0.317 · 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