An exact bootstrap confidence interval for kappa in small samples
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
Summary. Agreement between a pair of raters for binary outcome data is typically assessed by using the κ-coefficient. When the total sample size is small to moderate, and the proportion of agreement is high, standard methods of calculating confidence intervals for κ perform poorly. To improve the coverage of confidence intervals for κ, Lee and Tu formed an interval based on the profile variance of the estimate of the κ-coefficient, which requires the solution to a cubic polynomial. They showed in simulations that their method was the best available method with respect to the coverage probability and performs well except when the proportion of agreement is high and the sample size is small. Here, we propose a method that picks up where Lee and Tu's leaves off, namely when the proportion of agreement is high and the sample size is small. In particular, we propose the use of the bootstrap to form a confidence interval for κ. With a 2×2 table, and sample sizes less than 200, instead of a Monte Carlo bootstrap, one can easily calculate the ‘exact’ bootstrap distribution of the estimate of κ and use this distribution to calculate confidence intervals. We perform a simulation and show that the bootstrap gives slightly better coverage than Lee and Tu's method.
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 | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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