A Model-Assisted Approach for Finding Coding Errors in Manual Coding of Open-Ended Questions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Text answers to open-ended questions are typically manually coded into one of several codes. Usually, a random subset of text answers is double-coded to assess intercoder reliability, but most of the data remain single-coded. Any disagreement between the two coders points to an error by one of the coders. When the budget allows double coding additional text answers, we propose employing statistical learning models to predict which single-coded answers have a high risk of a coding error. Specifically, we train a model on the double-coded random subset and predict the probability that the single-coded codes are correct. Then, text answers with the highest risk are double-coded to verify. In experiments with three data sets, we found that this method identifies two to three times as many coding errors in the additional text answers as compared to random guessing, on average. We conclude that this method is preferred if the budget permits additional double-coding. When there are a lot of intercoder disagreements, the benefit can be substantial.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.056 | 0.158 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".