MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2518649402 · doi:10.20982/tqmp.10.2.p080

GRD: An SPSS extension command for generating random data

2014· article· en· W2518649402 on OpenAlexaff
Bradley Harding, Denis Cousineau

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Quantitative Methods for Psychology · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistics Education and Methodologies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRandomnessExtension (predicate logic)Computer scienceStatisticsSimple random sampleSample (material)Generator (circuit theory)Sampling (signal processing)Set (abstract data type)HomogeneousMathematicsPopulationData miningCombinatoricsPower (physics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To master statistics and data analysis tools, it is necessary to understand a number of concepts, many of which are quite abstract. For example, sampling from a theoretical distribution can help individuals explore and understand randomness. Sampling can also be used to build exercises aimed to help students master statistics. Here, we present GRD (Generator of Random Data), an extension command for SPSS (version 17 and above). With GRD, it is possible to get random data from a given distribution. In its simplest use, GRD will return a set of simulated data from a normal distribution. With subcommands to GRD, it is possible to get data from multiple groups, over multiple repeated measures, and with desired effect sizes. Group sizes can be equal or unequal. With further subcommands, it is possible to sample from any theoretical population, (not simply the normal distribution), introduce non-homogeneous variances, fix or randomize subject effects, etc. Finally, GRD's generated data are in a format ready to be analyzed.

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)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.056
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Software · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.175
Threshold uncertainty score0.585

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.056
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0010.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1750.076

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 head0.798
GPT teacher head0.696
Teacher spread0.102 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreSoftware

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

Citations8
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Quantitative Methods for PsychologySame topicStatistics Education and MethodologiesFrench-language works237,207