MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2953062827 · doi:10.48550/arxiv.0711.4011

On the detectability of different forms of interaction in regression models

2007· preprint· en· W2953062827 on OpenAlexaff
Juxin Liu, Paul Gustafson

Bibliographic record

VenueArXiv.org · 2007
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistical Methods and Inference
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPairwise comparisonContrast (vision)InteractionMathematicsRegression analysisRegressionEconometricsStatisticsComputer scienceArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We derive an asymptotic power function for a likelihood-based test for interaction in a regression model, with possibly misspecified alternative distribution. This allows a general investigation of types of interactions which are poorly or well detected via data. Principally we contrast pairwise-interaction models with `diffuse interaction models' as introduced in Gustafson, Kazi, and Levy (2005).

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)0.096
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.496
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.096
Threshold uncertainty score0.506

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0960.496
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.003
Bibliometrics0.0050.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.017
Scholarly communication0.0040.011
Open science0.0070.011
Research integrity0.0060.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.251
GPT teacher head0.427
Teacher spread0.175 · 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

Citations0
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArXiv.orgSame topicStatistical Methods and InferenceFrench-language works237,207