MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2950490442 · doi:10.1515/demo-2015-0006

Measuring association via lack ofco-monotonicity: the LOC index and aproblem of educational assessment

2015· preprint· en· W2950490442 on OpenAlexaff
Danang Teguh Qoyyimi, Ričardas Zitikis

Bibliographic record

VenueDependence Modeling · 2015
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicMulti-Criteria Decision Making
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMonotonic functionVariety (cybernetics)Reading (process)Index (typography)Set (abstract data type)Association (psychology)Monotone polygonSpellingMathematicsResource (disambiguation)EconometricsPsychologyComputer scienceStatisticsPolitical scienceLinguisticsMathematical analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Measuring association, or the lack of it, between variables plays an important role in a variety of research areas, including education,which is of our primary interest in this paper. Given, for example, student marks on several study subjects, we may for a number of reasons be interested in measuring the lack of comonotonicity (LOC) between the marks, which rarely follow monotone, let alone linear, patterns. For this purpose, in this paperwe explore a novel approach based on a LOCindex,which is related to, yet substantially different from, Eckhard Liebscher’s recently suggested coefficient of monotonically increasing dependence. To illustrate the new technique,we analyze a data-set of student marks on mathematics, reading and spelling.

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)0.026
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.113
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.139

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0260.113
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0070.007
Science and technology studies0.0010.005
Scholarly communication0.0040.005
Open science0.0020.005
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.330
GPT teacher head0.451
Teacher spread0.121 · 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
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

Citations2
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDependence ModelingSame topicMulti-Criteria Decision MakingFrench-language works237,207