MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

<scp>MOVER‐R</scp>for Confidence Intervals of Ratios

2018· other· en· W2948327198 on OpenAlexaff
Guangyong Zou, Allan Donner, Shi‐Fang Qiu

Bibliographic record

VenueWiley StatsRef: Statistics Reference Online · 2018
Typeother
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConfidence intervalMathematicsStatisticsVariance (accounting)Context (archaeology)Reliability (semiconductor)CDF-based nonparametric confidence intervalConfidence distributionCoefficient of variation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Many parameters of interest in statistical analysis are ratios of two quantities. Confidence limits for a ratio may be obtained by an application of Fieller's theorem, if both the numerator and denominator are means of normal variables. However, ratios of nonnormal quantities are common. Examples include the coefficient of variation (CV), for assessing the reproducibility or reliability of a measurement, and the incremental cost‐effectiveness ratio (ICER), defined in the context of a comparative study as the ratio of the difference in cost to the difference in the treatment effect. This article illustrates how to obtain the confidence limits for a ratio without requiring the numerator and denominator to be means of normal distributions. As the basic idea is to recover the variance estimates from confidence limits for the numerator and denominator, this procedure is referred to as themethod of variance recovery for ratios(MOVER‐R). The method encompasses Fieller's theorem as a special case.

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)0.046
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.457
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.091
Threshold uncertainty score0.306

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0460.457
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.005
Bibliometrics0.0110.015
Science and technology studies0.0020.006
Scholarly communication0.0040.007
Open science0.0060.003
Research integrity0.0060.013
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0910.048

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 head0.339
GPT teacher head0.452
Teacher spread0.113 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations1
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWiley StatsRef: Statistics Reference OnlineSame topicHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of LifeFrench-language works237,207