MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2508257146 · doi:10.1016/j.jco.2014.10.004

On construction of blocked general minimum lower-order confounding <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" altimg="si18.gif" display="inline" overflow="scroll"><mml:msup><mml:mrow><mml:mn>2</mml:mn></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:mi>n</mml:mi><mml:mo>−</mml:mo><mml:mi>m</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msup><mml:mo>:</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mrow><mml:mn>2</mml:mn></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:mi>r</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math> designs with <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" altimg="si19.gif" display="inline" overflow="scroll"><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mn>4</mml:mn><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mn>1</mml:mn><mml:mo>≤</mml:mo><mml:mi>n</mml:mi><mml:mo>≤</mml:mo><mml:mn>5</mml:mn><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mn>16</mml:mn></mml:math>

2014· article· lv· W2508257146 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

VenueJournal of Complexity · 2014
Typearticle
Languagelv
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicOptimal Experimental Design Methods
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsMathematicsOrder (exchange)AlgorithmCombinatoricsStatistics

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.

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)0.016
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Meta-epidemiology (broad), Science and technology studies, Scholarly communication, Open science, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Open science, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.812
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0160.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0070.014
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.014
Bibliometrics0.0060.010
Science and technology studies0.0120.015
Scholarly communication0.0120.011
Open science0.0170.013
Research integrity0.0150.013
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.4690.010

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.251 · 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