A Model of Cross-Disciplinary Communication for Collaborative Statisticians: Implications for Curriculum Design
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The ability to bridge multiple disciplines is critical to the successful practice of collaborative statistics, yet theliterature on statistical education devotes relatively little attention to how this skill can be taught. Our goal here is todescribe a general conceptual framework within which a curriculum on communication and leadership couldultimately be organized.The primary research question pertains to whether an actionable model of cross-disciplinary communication forcollaborative statisticians can be developed, and our task here is to describe such a model and also to illustrate its use.Within this model most communications either share or request information. For example, statisticians might provideinformation about statistics (e.g., specific statistical approaches, general statistical principles), comment on theclinician’s understanding of statistics, share their understanding of clinical content, and request information (e.g.,about clinical content, the design and execution of the study being discussed, etc.). Clinical investigators contributean analogous set of components. In addition, a critical element to the interaction is the higher-level task ofdeveloping a mutually understood agreement about the work to be performed: in essence, proposing and negotiatingsuch an agreement.The model is illustrated using a case study, and general qualitative feedback from investigators who performed thecase study was obtained, commenting on both successful and unsuccessful interactions with statisticians.Implications for curriculum development are discussed.
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 | 0.043 | 0.090 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 0.003 |
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".