Identifying the Big Shots—A Quantile-Matching Way in the Big Data Context
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The prevalence of big data has raised significant epistemological concerns in information systems research. This study addresses two of them—the deflated p -value problem and the role of explanation and prediction. To address the deflated p -value problem, we propose a multivariate effect size method that uses the log-likelihood ratio test. This method measures the joint effect of all variables used to operationalize one factor, thus overcoming the drawback of the traditional effect size method (θ), which can only be applied at the single variable level. However, because factors can be operationalized as different numbers of variables, direct comparison of multivariate effect size is not possible. A quantile-matching method is proposed to address this issue. This method provides consistent comparison results with the classic quantile method. But it is more flexible and can be applied to scenarios where the quantile method fails. Furthermore, an absolute multivariate effect size statistic is developed to facilitate concluding without comparison. We have tested our method using three different datasets and have found that it can effectively differentiate factors with various effect sizes. We have also compared it with prediction analysis and found consistent results: explanatorily influential factors are usually also predictively influential in a large sample scenario.
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 | 0.042 | 0.179 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
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.
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".