MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Sensitivity Analysis: Introduction

2016· other· en· W4248340588 on OpenAlexaff
Charles H. Goldsmith

Bibliographic record

VenueWiley StatsRef: Statistics Reference Online · 2016
Typeother
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistical Methods and Bayesian Inference
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSensitivity (control systems)Monte Carlo methodInterpretation (philosophy)Computer scienceEconometricsData miningStatisticsMathematicsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Sensitivity analysis is a reassessment of the model components used for data summary that attempts to detect whether changing any of their assumptions leads to different interpretations of the outcome. Sensitivity analysis can be carried out simply by varying input values to assess whether a different interpretation of the response emerges, or more elaborate ideas from Monte Carlo analysis and factorial experiments can also be used. Sensitivity analyses have been used recently for meta‐analysis. Other techniques such as graphical displays and comparison of alternative model formulations are also briefly mentioned.

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)0.123
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.368
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.123
Threshold uncertainty score0.648

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1230.368
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0040.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.010
Bibliometrics0.0060.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0060.005
Open science0.0040.004
Research integrity0.0040.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0530.006

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 head0.057
GPT teacher head0.391
Teacher spread0.334 · 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 designNot applicable
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
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWiley StatsRef: Statistics Reference OnlineSame topicStatistical Methods and Bayesian InferenceFrench-language works237,207