MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3091627933 · doi:10.1177/1094428120959827

Multilevel Methods and Statistics: The Next Frontier

2020· article· en· W3091627933 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.

Bibliographic record

VenueOrganizational Research Methods · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial Capital and Networks
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMultilevel modelFrontierExtant taxonData scienceField (mathematics)Management scienceSociologyComputer scienceStatisticsPolitical scienceMathematicsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this article is to take stock of extant multilevel methodological and statistical work and highlight needed areas for future research. A basic overview of the history and progression of multilevel methods and statistics in the organizational sciences is provided, as well as a discussion of recent developments to summarize the current state of the science. The eight articles in the current feature topic are also summarized and integrated to depict several themes and directions for the next wave of multilevel methods and statistics. Last, to highlight what still needs to be accomplished in the field, several unresolved issues and future research topics are noted and an agenda related to future multilevel work is discussed.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.024
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Science and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.657
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.024
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.392
GPT teacher head0.597
Teacher spread0.205 · 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