MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2467932880 · doi:10.1177/0013164416654740

An Unbiased Estimate of Global Interrater Agreement

2016· article· en· W2467932880 on OpenAlexaff
Denis Cousineau, Louis Laurencelle

Bibliographic record

VenueEducational and Psychological Measurement · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicReliability and Agreement in Measurement
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Trois-RivièresUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInter-rater reliabilityStatisticsAgreementEconometricsPsychologyMathematicsRating scaleLinguistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Assessing global interrater agreement is difficult as most published indices are affected by the presence of mixtures of agreements and disagreements. A previously proposed method was shown to be specifically sensitive to global agreement, excluding mixtures, but also negatively biased. Here, we propose two alternatives in an attempt to find what makes such methods so specific. The first method, R B , is found to be unbiased while at the same time rejecting mixtures, is detecting agreement with good power and is little affected by unequal category prevalence as soon as there are more than two categories.

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 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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.268
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.001
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 science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.402
GPT teacher head0.476
Teacher spread0.074 · 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; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations4
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEducational and Psychological MeasurementSame topicReliability and Agreement in MeasurementFrench-language works237,207