MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2566423486 · doi:10.5539/ijsp.v6n1p78

Inverse Sampling for McNemar's Test

2016· article· en· W2566423486 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Mark Von Tress

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Statistics and Probability · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistical Methods in Clinical Trials
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMathematicsMcNemar's testStatisticsNegative binomial distributionContinuity correctionBinomial distributionSampling (signal processing)Binomial testBinomial proportion confidence intervalBinomial (polynomial)Poisson samplingBeta-binomial distributionSlice samplingPoisson distributionImportance samplingComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Inverse sampling for McNemars test is studied. Sampling is conducted until a pre-specified number of discordant pairs is observed instead of sampling until a pre-specified total number of pairs is observed. The joint likelihood is decomposed into a product of a negative binomial distribution for the number of pairs required to observe r discordant pairs, a binomial distribution for the number of successes in the concordant observations, and a binomial distribution for the number of successes in the discordant observations. Since inference in this problem is based on the discordant observations, inverse sampling controls the type II error when small numbers of discordant observations are observed and the exact binomial test is required. The control results from fixing the sample size for the exact binomial test. Standard sampling instead lets the sample size for the exact binomial test vary and then performs the test conditionally on the observed number of discordant pairs.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.206
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
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 score0.287
Threshold uncertainty score0.801

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.206
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 science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.478
GPT teacher head0.545
Teacher spread0.066 · 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 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 topicStatistical Methods in Clinical TrialsFrench-language works237,207