MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W302359178 · doi:10.1002/cjs.5550360406

Inference in the presence of ranking error in ranked set sampling

2008· article· en· W302359178 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Ömer Öztürk

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Statistics · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicAdvanced Statistical Methods and Models
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMathematicsStatisticsConfidence intervalInferenceRanking (information retrieval)HumanitiesComputer scienceArtificial intelligencePhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The author proposes inference techniques for ranked set sample data in the presence of judgment ranking errors. He bases his analysis on the models of Bohn & Wolfe (1994) and Frey (2007a, b), of which parameters are estimated by minimizing a distance measure. He then uses the fitted models to calibrate confidence intervals and tests. He shows the validity of his approach through simulation and illustrates its application through the construction of distribution‐free confidence intervals for the median area of apple tree leaves covered by a spray.

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)0.143
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.434
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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.143
Threshold uncertainty score0.754

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1430.434
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.003
Bibliometrics0.0040.005
Science and technology studies0.0020.007
Scholarly communication0.0050.007
Open science0.0070.004
Research integrity0.0030.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.306
GPT teacher head0.433
Teacher spread0.127 · 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
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

Citations1
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of StatisticsSame topicAdvanced Statistical Methods and ModelsFrench-language works237,207