MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2511386832 · doi:10.5539/ijsp.v5n5p1

Tau-Proportionate Form of Congeneric Covariance Structure

2016· article· en· W2511386832 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Saran Ishika Maiti

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Statistics and Probability · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicAdvanced Statistical Methods and Models
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMathematicsCovarianceSimple (philosophy)Covariance matrixGoodness of fitPoint (geometry)Applied mathematicsComposite numberStatistical hypothesis testingMatrix (chemical analysis)StatisticsCombinatoricsStatistical physicsAlgorithmGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

From the view point of constructing a composite possessing the largest possible common covariability with all of its constituent tests, the concept of the best equi-covariable composite (BEC) has been introduced. When the covariance matrix of the constituent tests are so structured that its row (column) totals are all equal, the corresponding BEC is shown to be reducible to simple aggregated (or averaged) test. Under the purview of congeneric tests, it is shown that there exists a special form termed tau-proportionate congeneric form in which case the simple aggregated (or averaged) test is not only the BEC but also the most reliable composite. Statistical techniques of the estimation of parameters, testing and goodness-of-fit of the such structure are considered with the aid of an illustrative example.

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 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)0.018
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.081
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.096

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0180.081
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.005
Scholarly communication0.0030.006
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.002

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 head0.062
GPT teacher head0.387
Teacher spread0.325 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
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

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Statistics and ProbabilitySame topicAdvanced Statistical Methods and ModelsFrench-language works237,207