Bibliographic record
Abstract
Almost all social science data are analysed with variants of the General Linear Model (GLM): regression analyses, analyses of variance, factor analyses, path analyses and the like. However, many interesting and important social phenomena cannot be addressed with the GLM. Ordinal Pattern Analysis (OPA) was developed to examine such excluded phenomena. OPA is a goodness-of-fit procedure for calculating indices of how well a researcher's ordinal predictions match the ordinal properties of data at hand. While the GLM requires raw data to be aggregated across individuals or groups first before being analysed, OPA permits the reverse: Raw data from each individual or group can first be analysed, then aggregated. The reversal reveals what occurs "in general" rather than "on average" – two revelations that often diverge. We illustrate some uses of OPA with simple examples, and provide a computer programme for expediting OPA calculations.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.019 | 0.119 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.016 | 0.024 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.018 | 0.004 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".