MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W34343354 · doi:10.1002/cncr.33796

Proportionally balanced designs: Some further results and general constructions

2001· article· en· W34343354 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
K. B. Gray

Bibliographic record

VenueUtilitas Mathematica · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicOptimal Experimental Design Methods
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMorphoSys
KeywordsMathematicsProperty (philosophy)ArithmeticGray (unit)Core (optical fiber)Unit (ring theory)Test (biology)Mathematics educationComputer scienceEpistemology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Proportionally balanced designs were introduced by Gray and Matters in response to a need for the allocation of markers of the Queensland Core Skills Test to have a certain property. Put simply, markers were allocated to pairs of units in proportions that reflected the relative numbers of markers allocated in total to each unit. In this paper, the first author extends the theoretical results relating to such designs and provides further instances, and two general constructions, in the case that the design comprises blocks of precisely two sizes.

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)0.161
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.258
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
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 score0.161
Threshold uncertainty score0.852

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1610.258
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0050.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0070.008
Bibliometrics0.0040.006
Science and technology studies0.0020.005
Scholarly communication0.0030.008
Open science0.0040.005
Research integrity0.0030.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0180.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.173
GPT teacher head0.432
Teacher spread0.259 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations1
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUtilitas MathematicaSame topicOptimal Experimental Design MethodsFrench-language works237,207