MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2158319724 · doi:10.1348/000711002760554606

The comparative sensitivity of ordinal multiple regression and least squares regression to departures from interval scaling

2002· article· en· W2158319724 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

VenueBritish Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Decision-Making Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMathematicsStatisticsOrdinal regressionRaw scoreOrdinal dataRegressionRegression analysisDiscretizationOptimal distinctiveness theoryScalingRaw dataOrdinal ScaleInterval (graph theory)PsychologyCombinatorics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The comparative sensitivity of ordinal multiple regression (OMR) and least squares regression (LSR) to criterion variable deviations from interval scaling was investigated by way of computer simulation. LSR on raw scores and ranks was compared to OMR on raw scores, ranks and dominances. Simulated data sets varied on predictor variable correlations, amount of prediction error, weight distinctiveness and shape of rating-scale distribution. The results indicated that LSR on raw scores was most affected by discretization in all conditions. In contrast, the performance of LSR approximated that of OMR when the data were first transformed to ranks. The poor performance of LSR on raw scores was most pronounced when the data discretization resulted in a symmetrical distribution. Predictor variable correlations and amount of prediction error did not affect the pattern of results. Weight distinctiveness did not interact with the other factors.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.952
Threshold uncertainty score0.346

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.368
Teacher spread0.313 · 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