Bibliographic record
Abstract
A reliable method of measurement is important in various scientific areas. When a new method of measurement is developed, it should be tested against a standard method that is currently in use. Bland and Altman proposed limits of agreement (LOA) to compare two methods of measurement under the normality assumption. Recently, a sample size formula has been proposed for hypothesis testing to compare two methods of measurement. In the hypothesis testing, the null hypothesis states that the two methods do not satisfy a pre-specified acceptable degree of agreement. Carefully considering the interpretation of the LOA, we argue that there are cases of an acceptable degree of agreement inside the null parameter space. We refer to this subset as the paradoxical parameter space in this article. To address this paradox, we apply a Bernoulli approach to modify the null parameter space and to relax the normality assumption on the data. Using simulations, we demonstrate that the change in statistical power is not negligible when the true parameter values are inside or near the paradoxical parameter space. In addition, we demonstrate an application of the sequential probability ratio test to allow researchers to draw a conclusion with a smaller sample size and to reduce the study time.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.325 | 0.498 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.022 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".