Assessing a Binary Measurement System With Varying Misclassification Rates When a Gold Standard Is Available
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
In manufacturing, we often use a binary measurement system (BMS) for 100% inspection to protect customers from receiving nonconforming product. We can assess the performance of a BMS by estimating the consumer's and producer's risks, the two misclassification rates. Here, we consider assessment plans and their analysis when a gold standard system (GSS) is available for the assessment study but is too expensive for everyday use. We propose a random-effects model to allow for variation in the misclassification rates within the populations of conforming and nonconforming parts. One possibility, here denoted the standard plan, is to randomly sample n parts and measure them once with the GSS and r times with the inspection system. We provide a simple analysis and planning advice for standard plans. In practice, the misclassification rates are often low and the underlying process has high capability. This combination of conditions makes the assessment of the BMS challenging. We show that we need a very large number of measurements with the standard plan in order to get precise estimators of the average misclassification rates and the true process performance. We consider an alternate design, here denoted the conditional assessment plan, where we select random samples from the sets of previously passed and failed parts. The sampled parts are measured once with the GSS and r times with the inspection system. When we augment the data from the conditional plans with available baseline information on the overall pass rate, we show that we can precisely estimate the parameters of interest with many fewer measurements. In the online supplementary materials, we provide R code to find maximum likelihood estimates and corresponding approximate standard errors, and to find the asymptotic standard deviation of the estimators with a selected plan size and assumed parameter values for both the standard and the conditional sampling plans.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
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.
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