MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2811410005 · doi:10.1177/0844562118786647

Univariate Outliers: A Conceptual Overview for the Nurse Researcher

2018· review· en· W2811410005 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Nursing Research · 2018
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicAdvanced Statistical Methods and Models
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUnivariateOutlierComputer scienceIdentification (biology)Generalizability theoryData miningAnomaly detectionStatisticsData scienceEconometricsArtificial intelligenceMathematicsMachine learningMultivariate statistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The presence of statistical outliers is a shared concern in research. If ignored or improperly handled, outliers have the potential to distort the estimate of the parameter of interest and thus compromise the generalizability of research findings. A variety of statistical techniques are available to assist researchers with the identification and management of outlier cases. The purpose of this paper is to provide a conceptual overview of univariate outliers with special focus on common techniques used to detect and manage univariate outliers. Specifically, this paper discusses the use of histograms, boxplots, interquartile range, and z-score analysis as common univariate outlier identification techniques. The paper also discusses the outlier management techniques of deletion, substitution, and transformation.

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.

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)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.019
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.752
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.019
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
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 head0.819
GPT teacher head0.661
Teacher spread0.157 · 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