MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4205712074 · doi:10.5539/jmr.v14n1p46

Relationship between Event Prevalence Rate and Gini Coefficient of Predictive Model

2022· article· en· W4205712074 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Fei Han, Ian Stockwell

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Mathematics Research · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStatisticMathematicsGini coefficientStatisticsEvent (particle physics)EconometricsMeasure (data warehouse)InequalityData miningComputer scienceEconomic inequality

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Predictive models are currently used for early intervention to help identify patients with a high risk of adverse events. Assessing the accuracy of such models is a crucial part of the development process. To measure the predictive performance of a scoring model, quantitative indices such as the K-S statistic and C-statistic are used. This paper discusses the relationship between Gini coefficients and event prevalence rates. The main contribution of the paper is the theoretical proof of the relationship between the Gini coefficient and event prevalence rate.

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 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)0.018
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesResearch integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.732
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0180.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
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 head0.576
GPT teacher head0.606
Teacher spread0.030 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
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

Citations1
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Mathematics ResearchSame topicArtificial Intelligence in HealthcareFrench-language works237,207