MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

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

2018· other· en· W2948327198 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

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 the method 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.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.514
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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