MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2887293044 · doi:10.1177/0049124118789717

A Note on a Reformulation of the KHB Method

2018· article· en· W2887293044 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.

Bibliographic record

VenueSociological Methods & Research · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicSpatial and Panel Data Analysis
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLogitProbitStatisticsMathematicsProbit modelLogistic regressionEconometricsResidualConfoundingVariance (accounting)Constant (computer programming)Conditional probabilityConditional logistic regressionComputer scienceEconomicsAlgorithm

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Karlson–Holm–Breen (KHB) method has rapidly become popular as a way of separating the impact of confounding from rescaling when comparing conditional and unconditional parameter estimates in nonlinear probability models such as the logit and probit. In this note, we show that the same estimates can be obtained in a somewhat different way to that advanced by Karlson, Holm, and Breen in their original article and implemented in the user-written Stata command khb. While the KHB method and this revised KHB method both work by holding constant the residual variance of the model, the revised method makes comparisons across multiple nested models easier than the original method.

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)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.604
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.408
GPT teacher head0.532
Teacher spread0.124 · 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