MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2770322578 · doi:10.1002/bimj.201700129

On the necessity and design of studies comparing statistical methods

2017· letter· en· W2770322578 on OpenAlexaff
Anne‐Laure Boulesteix, Harald Binder, Michał Abrahamowicz, Willi Sauerbrei

Bibliographic record

VenueBiometrical Journal · 2017
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistical Methods in Clinical Trials
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityMcGill University Health Centre
FundersDeutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft
KeywordsBiostatisticsLibrary scienceEpidemiologyMedical statisticsMedicineComputer scienceMathematicsStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex
No abstract in any covered source. Its absence is recorded, not treated as a negative.

No abstract. This is not a gap in this database; OpenAlex has none either. 23.3% of the frame is in this state, and the screen finds HALF as much metaresearch here, so the absence is a measured bias rather than a missing field.

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)0.513
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.746
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.487
Threshold uncertainty score0.601

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.5130.746
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0090.004
Bibliometrics0.0050.004
Science and technology studies0.0060.039
Scholarly communication0.0120.015
Open science0.0100.008
Research integrity0.0710.083
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.004

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.

Opus teacher head0.902
GPT teacher head0.676
Teacher spread0.226 · 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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
DomainMethods
GenreCommentary

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

Citations108
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueBiometrical JournalSame topicStatistical Methods in Clinical TrialsFrench-language works237,207