MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Scaling responses

2014· book· en· W4239271187 on OpenAlex
David L. Streiner, Geoffrey R. Norman, John Cairney

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typebook
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicSensory Analysis and Statistical Methods
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGuttman scaleRespondentLikert scaleScalingScale (ratio)Multidimensional scalingEconometricsStatisticsComputer sciencePsychologyMathematicsGeographyCartography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This chapter presents various ways of presenting the response options to the respondent. It begins by discussing why dichotomous responses (e.g. yes/no, true/false) are often inadequate. Different alternatives are discussed, including direct estimation methods (e.g. visual analogue scales, adjectival scales, Likert scales), comparative methods (e.g. paired comparisons, Guttman scaling), and econometric methods. It reviews some of the issues that need to be considered in writing the response options, such as whether one should use a unipolar or bipolar scale, how many steps there should be, and whether all the response options need to be labelled. It also covers what statistical tests can legitimately be used with scales. Finally, it compares ratings with rankings, and introduces the method of multidimensional scaling.

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.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.871
Threshold uncertainty score0.993

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.000

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 head0.056
GPT teacher head0.281
Teacher spread0.225 · 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

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSensory Analysis and Statistical MethodsFrench-language works237,207