MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3203362329 · doi:10.1080/08982112.2021.1938118

Identifying dominant causes using leveraged study designs

2021· article· en· W3203362329 on OpenAlexaff
Mahsa Panahi, Jeroen de Mast, Stefan H. Steiner

Bibliographic record

VenueQuality Engineering · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicAdvanced Statistical Process Monitoring
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsExploitComputer scienceProcess (computing)Plan (archaeology)Variation (astronomy)Data miningComputer security

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Dorian Shainin’s group comparison procedure is a way to find the dominant cause(s) of variation in a process, based on an investigation plan that exploits the idea of leveraging. In this paper, we study whether Shainin’s procedure is sound. Our main finding is that Shainin’s procedure is unreliable in identifying the dominant cause, and in addition, the procedure is inefficient. We propose a new efficient and sound analysis procedure based on the method of maximum likelihood. A critical evaluation shows our proposed method is superior. We also provide a tangible example and compare both methods’ outcomes.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.357
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.503
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.357
Threshold uncertainty score0.792

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.3570.503
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.007
Bibliometrics0.0090.004
Science and technology studies0.0020.005
Scholarly communication0.0040.005
Open science0.0030.006
Research integrity0.0040.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.550
GPT teacher head0.536
Teacher spread0.014 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueQuality EngineeringSame topicAdvanced Statistical Process MonitoringFrench-language works237,207