MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2884217876 · doi:10.3386/w24855

Emptying the Tank: Getting the most out of Limited Data

2018· report· en· W2884217876 on OpenAlexaff
M. Scott Taylor

Bibliographic record

VenueNational Bureau of Economic Research · 2018
Typereport
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicEnergy Load and Power Forecasting
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceStatisticsBusinessEnvironmental scienceMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

All empirical researchers know that having more sources of variation in a dataset is valuable.What is not known is how valuable, and if the marginal value of adding another source of variation diminishes or increases.This note provides explicit answers to these questions.It defines "valuable" as the number of independent questions the data can potentially answer, and provides a surprisingly simple and useful rule that tells the researcher not only when they have "emptied the tank" of their data's valuable implications, but also the marginal value of further data collection.An illustration using home heating costs is provided.

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)0.077
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.381
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.077
Threshold uncertainty score0.407

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0770.381
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0060.010
Science and technology studies0.0050.010
Scholarly communication0.0130.040
Open science0.0060.010
Research integrity0.0060.010
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.004

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 head0.440
GPT teacher head0.480
Teacher spread0.040 · 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

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNational Bureau of Economic ResearchSame topicEnergy Load and Power ForecastingFrench-language works237,207