MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2329605113 · doi:10.1177/2059799115622746

Log-linear distance models of homophily in small groups

2016· article· en· W2329605113 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

VenueMethodological Innovations · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCrime Patterns and Interventions
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHomophilySet (abstract data type)Log-linear modelData setLinear modelGeographical distanceOrder (exchange)EconometricsStatisticsComputer scienceMathematicsPsychologySociologySocial psychologyDemographyEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article demonstrates the innovative use of the log-linear distance model in the assessment of homophily in a set of small groups, such as the co-participants in a set of events. It traces the development of the application of the log-linear distance model to the study of homophily and reviews its recent use to assess the extent and structure of gender and age homophily in groups of criminal accomplices (‘co-offenders’). The transformations of the group membership data that are a prerequisite of the log-linear analysis, and the interpretation of the log-linear parameters, are explained in detail in order to make the approach accessible to potential users. Although the described applications are to gender and age homophily in groups of criminal accomplices, the method can be used to assess homophily on one or more variables in any small groups.

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)0.002
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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.581
Threshold uncertainty score0.808

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.579
GPT teacher head0.481
Teacher spread0.097 · 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