MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2367707061 · doi:10.1016/j.jval.2016.04.004

Statistical Methods for the Analysis of Discrete Choice Experiments: A Report of the ISPOR Conjoint Analysis Good Research Practices Task Force

2016· article· en· W2367707061 on OpenAlexaff
Brett Hauber, Juan Marcos González, Karin Groothuis‐Oudshoorn, Thomas J. Prior, Deborah A. Marshall, Charles E. Cunningham, Maarten J. IJzerman, John F. P. Bridges

Bibliographic record

VenueValue in Health · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicEconomic and Environmental Valuation
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConjoint analysisTask forceTask (project management)Management scienceComputer scienceEconometricsEconomicsMicroeconomicsManagementPreferencePolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex
No abstract in any covered source. Its absence is recorded, not treated as a negative.

No abstract. This is not a gap in this database; OpenAlex has none either. 23.3% of the frame is in this state, and the screen finds HALF as much metaresearch here, so the absence is a measured bias rather than a missing field.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.433
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.639
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.567
Threshold uncertainty score0.699

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.4330.639
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0040.005
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0070.011
Bibliometrics0.0100.012
Science and technology studies0.0030.010
Scholarly communication0.0080.004
Open science0.0070.006
Research integrity0.0050.026
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0150.004

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.

Opus teacher head0.388
GPT teacher head0.473
Teacher spread0.085 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
DomainMethods
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations1,312
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueValue in HealthSame topicEconomic and Environmental ValuationFrench-language works237,207