Confidence intervals that match Fisher's exact or Blaker's exact tests
Bibliographic record
Abstract
When analyzing a 2 x 2 table, the two-sided Fisher's exact test and the usual exact confidence interval (CI) for the odds ratio may give conflicting inferences; for example, the test rejects but the associated CI contains an odds ratio of 1. The problem is that the usual exact CI is the inversion of the test that rejects if either of the one-sided Fisher's exact tests rejects at half the nominal significance level. Further, the confidence set that is the inversion of the usual two-sided Fisher's exact test may not be an interval, so following Blaker (2000, Confidence curves and improved exact confidence intervals for discrete distributions. Canadian Journal of Statistics 28, 783-798), we define the "matching" interval as the smallest interval that contains the confidence set. We explore these 2 versions of Fisher's exact test as well as an exact test suggested by Blaker (2000) and provide the R package exact2x2 which automatically assigns the appropriate matching interval to each of the 3 exact tests.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.059 | 0.577 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.018 | 0.004 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".