MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2971515141 · doi:10.1079/9781789243307.0009

Descriptive statistics: making sense of data.

2019· book-chapter· en· W2971515141 on OpenAlexaff
Anita Kozák, Robert Kozak, Christina L. Staudhammer, S. B. Watts

Bibliographic record

VenueCABI eBooks · 2019
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicForest ecology and management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceDescriptive statisticsVariable (mathematics)Natural (archaeology)StatisticsData scienceData miningGeographyMathematicsArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To adequately monitor and manage natural resources, such as forests and rangelands, many very large data sets are compiled. In this light, the chapter explores the tools used to make data sets more comprehensible. By organizing variables into tables, charts and graphs, and by calculating numbers that best describe the characteristics of a variable of interest, managers can quickly get information about the natural resources for which they are responsible.

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)0.043
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.166
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.043
Threshold uncertainty score0.230

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0430.166
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0160.019
Science and technology studies0.0010.004
Scholarly communication0.0070.010
Open science0.0030.004
Research integrity0.0020.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0200.014

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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.208 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCABI eBooksSame topicForest ecology and managementFrench-language works237,207