MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Selecting the items

2014· book· en· W4236315844 on OpenAlexaff
David L. Streiner, Geoffrey R. Norman, John Cairney

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typebook
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicMulti-Criteria Decision Making
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHomogeneity (statistics)AmbiguityCronbach's alphaJargonPsychologySocial psychologyStatisticsComputer scienceMathematicsCognitive psychologyLinguisticsPsychometrics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Not all of the items that have been generated will prove to be useful. This chapter discusses the criteria of a good item, such as its reading level, lack of ambiguity, asking only a single question, freedom from jargon, being worded in a positive direction, and length. Another consideration is the distribution of responses, whether all response alternatives have been used by at least some of the respondents, and when items with very low endorsement frequencies may actually be useful. It also discusses the homogeneity of the scale and the various ways of measuring it (e.g. KR-20, split-halves, and Cronbach’s alpha). Finally, it discusses when homogeneity is and is not important, and which statistical tests should not be used when homogeneity is not required.

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)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Scholarly communication, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.100
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.000
Open science0.0040.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.014

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 head0.302
GPT teacher head0.463
Teacher spread0.161 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMulti-Criteria Decision MakingFrench-language works237,207