MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3034054763 · doi:10.1177/0844562120932054

Multivariate Outliers: A Conceptual and Practical Overview for the Nurse and Health Researcher

2020· review· en· W3034054763 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Nursing Research · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicProbabilistic and Robust Engineering Design
Canadian institutionsUniversity of WindsorMcMaster UniversityImpact
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOutlierMultivariate statisticsMahalanobis distanceLeverage (statistics)Multivariate analysisComputer scienceData miningIdentification (biology)StatisticsEconometricsData scienceArtificial intelligenceMachine learningMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The presence of statistical outliers is a shared concern in research. If ignored or improperly handled, outliers have the potential to distort parameter estimates and possibly compromise the validity of research findings. The purpose of this paper is to provide a conceptual and practical overview of multivariate outliers with a focus on common techniques used to identify and manage multivariate outliers. Specifically, this paper discusses the use of Mahalanobis distance and residual statistics as common multivariate outlier identification techniques. It also discusses the use of leverage and Cook's distance as two common techniques to determine the influence that multivariate outliers may have on statistical models. Finally, this paper discusses techniques that are commonly used to handle influential multivariate outlier cases.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.025
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.034
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.908
Threshold uncertainty score0.991

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0250.034
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.833
GPT teacher head0.638
Teacher spread0.196 · 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