MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3111612872 · doi:10.5121/ijsea.2020.11601

Stated Preference Data & Alogit

2020· article· en· W3111612872 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

VenueInternational Journal of Software Engineering & Applications · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicEconomic and Environmental Valuation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRespondentPreferenceRanking (information retrieval)Set (abstract data type)Computer scienceSoftwareRevealed preferenceLogitData setMixed logitProcess (computing)Survey data collectionData miningMaximizationOperations researchEconometricsLogistic regressionStatisticsEngineeringInformation retrievalMachine learningEconomicsMathematicsArtificial intelligenceMathematical optimization

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Stated Preference (SP) surveys are a form of experimental surveys in which the respondent states his/her preferences towards to an alternative out of a set of alternatives that they are presented with. The process of analysing the data collected and estimating the utility of the alternatives under investigation found through such surveys, depending on the nature of the survey design and its underlying details, can be time consuming and cumbersome. If the data is to be studied using logit models, the ALOGIT software can be used which is a powerful tool used for utility maximization and estimations of a SP survey data set. The software requires development and use of a special and often quite lengthy code. This paper presents the reader with a specific yet immensely useful computer program to be used in ALOGIT for estimations when working with SP data and logit models involving ranking and rating of alternatives.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.907
Threshold uncertainty score0.620

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.230
GPT teacher head0.252
Teacher spread0.022 · 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