MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Within‐Case Designs: Distribution‐Free Methods

2017· other· en· W4252816699 on OpenAlexaff
Lisa M. Lix

Bibliographic record

VenueWiley StatsRef: Statistics Reference Online · 2017
Typeother
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicOptimal Experimental Design Methods
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBootstrapping (finance)Nonparametric statisticsUnivariateMultivariate statisticsStatisticsParametric statisticsMissing dataEconometricsStatistical hypothesis testingRank (graph theory)Computer scienceMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract In within‐case designs, individuals are measured repeatedly over time or across multiple experimental conditions. Univariate and multivariate parametric procedures for testing within‐case effects may lose statistical power under departures from a multivariate normal distribution. Nonparametric procedures based on rank scores or bootstrapping are useful alternatives for testing within‐case effects when the data are skewed or have heavy tails. We consider these methods when there are missing observations and for complex designs.

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)0.234
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.367
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.234
Threshold uncertainty score0.944

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.2340.367
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.004
Bibliometrics0.0040.004
Science and technology studies0.0020.006
Scholarly communication0.0040.004
Open science0.0060.005
Research integrity0.0040.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0600.009

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 head0.373
GPT teacher head0.551
Teacher spread0.178 · 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.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWiley StatsRef: Statistics Reference OnlineSame topicOptimal Experimental Design MethodsFrench-language works237,207