MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3170257233 · doi:10.6000/1929-6029.2021.10.06

Existing Approaches and Development Perspectives for Inferences

2021· article· en· W3170257233 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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Statistics in Medical Research · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicStatistical and Computational Modeling
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDilemmaSimple (philosophy)Computer scienceManagement scienceResolution (logic)Data scienceStatistical inferenceDevelopment (topology)MathematicsArtificial intelligenceStatisticsEpistemologyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Statistical hypotheses testing is one of the basic direction of mathematical statistics the methods of which are widely used in theoretical research and practical applications. These methods are widely used in medical researches too. Scientists of different fields, among them of medical too, that are not experts in statistics, are often faced with the dilemma of which method to use for solving the problem they are interested. The article is devoted to helping the specialists in solving this problem and in finding the optimal resolution. For this purpose, here are very simple and clearly explained the essences of the existed approaches and are shown their positive and negative sides and are given the recommendations about their use depending on existed information and the aim that must be reached as a result of an investigation.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
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 score0.404
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.011
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 head0.339
GPT teacher head0.481
Teacher spread0.142 · 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