MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Nested Experimental Designs

2014· other· en· W4252970442 on OpenAlexaff
Kirti R. Shah, Bikas K. Sinha

Bibliographic record

VenueWiley StatsRef: Statistics Reference Online · 2014
Typeother
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicOptimal Experimental Design Methods
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNested set modelDifferential (mechanical device)SubclassPollutionEnvironmental scienceComputer scienceEngineeringData miningBiologyEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Nested experimental designs form an important subclass of experimental designs wherein some factors are found to be naturally nested within the ‘levels’ of other factors. In a study to examine differential effects of several methods of reducing water pollution, for example, water samples may be taken from different counties and in each county possibly from different water sources, say wells. These samples are then treated with the available methods (for reducing water pollution) and the resulting data analyzed. In this case we may consider the counties as being the levels of the first fac

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)0.082
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.179
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.082
Threshold uncertainty score0.432

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0820.179
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.003
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.004
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0040.003
Research integrity0.0030.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0330.004

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 head0.292
GPT teacher head0.490
Teacher spread0.198 · 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 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
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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