MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2743432143 · doi:10.22237/jmasm/1509494640

The Impact of Predictor Variable(s) with Skewed Cell Probabilities on Wald Tests in Binary Logistic Regression

2017· article· en· W2743432143 on OpenAlexaff
Arwa Alkhalaf, Bruno D. Zumbo

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Modern Applied Statistical Methods · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicAdvanced Statistical Methods and Models
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersKing Abdulaziz University
KeywordsWald testLogistic regressionStatisticsMathematicsEconometricsRegression analysisType I and type II errorsStatistical hypothesis testing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A series of simulation studies are reported that investigated the impact of a skewed predictor(s) on the Type I error rate and power of the Wald test in a logistic regression model. Five simulations were conducted for three different regression models. A detailed description of the impact of skewed cell predictor probabilities and sample size provide guidelines for practitioners wherein to expect the greatest problems.

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)0.158
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.566
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.158
Threshold uncertainty score0.833

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1580.566
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.005
Scholarly communication0.0030.005
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.144
GPT teacher head0.491
Teacher spread0.347 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations9
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Modern Applied Statistical MethodsSame topicAdvanced Statistical Methods and ModelsFrench-language works237,207