MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2166211535 · doi:10.1177/1471082x0700700406

Worm plot to diagnose fit in quantile regression

2007· article· en· W2166211535 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.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
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

VenueStatistical Modelling · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistical Methods and Inference
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersAGE-WELL
KeywordsQuantile regressionPlot (graphics)OverfittingQuantileCovariateStatisticsEconometricsRegressionRegression analysisMathematicsParametric statisticsComputer scienceArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The worm plot is a series of detrended Q-Q plots, split by covariate levels. The worm plot is a diagnostic tool for visualizing how well a statistical model fits the data, for finding locations at which the fit can be improved, and for comparing the fit of different models. This paper shows how the worm plot can be used in conjunction with quantile regression. No parametric distributional assumptions are needed to create the worm plot. We fitted both an LMS and a quantile regression model on Dutch height data. The worm plot shows that the quantile regression model is superior to the LMS model in terms of fit. At the same time, it also contains a warning that the particular quantile model used may actually overfit the data. The resulting quantile curves are wiggly at the extremes, and appear less well suited for drawing growth diagrams. The paper concludes that the worm plot is a natural diagnostic tool for quantile regression.

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)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.365
Threshold uncertainty score0.656

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
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 head0.219
GPT teacher head0.448
Teacher spread0.229 · 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