MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Testing the equality of two dependent kappa statistics

2000· article· en· W2146976162 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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueStatistics in Medicine · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicReliability and Agreement in Measurement
Canadian institutionsUniversity of GuelphWestern University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsStatisticsKappaCorrelationMonte Carlo methodMathematicsCohen's kappaGoodness of fitDependency (UML)Sample size determinationVariable (mathematics)Computer scienceArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Procedures are developed and compared for testing the equality of two dependent kappa statistics in the case of two raters and a dichotomous outcome variable. Such problems may arise when each of a sample of subjects are rated under two distinct settings, and it is of interest to compare the observed levels of inter-observer and intra-observer agreement. The procedures compared are extensions of previously developed procedures for comparing kappa statistics computed from independent samples. The results of a Monte Carlo simulation show that adjusting for the dependency between samples tends to be worthwhile only if the between-setting correlation is comparable in magnitude to the within-setting correlations. In this case, a goodness-of-fit procedure that takes into account the dependency between samples is recommended.

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)0.015
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.758
Threshold uncertainty score0.995

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.267
GPT teacher head0.456
Teacher spread0.189 · 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