MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4253423488 · doi:10.1002/9780471462422.eoct967

Overdispersion

2008· other· en· W4253423488 on OpenAlex

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

VenueWiley Encyclopedia of Clinical Trials · 2008
Typeother
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistical Methods and Bayesian Inference
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOverdispersionQuasi-likelihoodCovariateEconometricsStatisticsPoisson distributionMathematicsNegative binomial distributionCount data

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Count data analyzed under a Poisson assumption or data in the form of proportions analyzed under a binomial assumption often exhibit overdispersion, where the empirical variance in the data is greater than that predicted by the model. This entry illustrates how overdispersion may arise and discusses the consequences of ignoring it, in particular, the underestimation of standard errors of covariate effects. Straightforward methods for ascertaining whether overdispersion is evident are presented. Simple methods for incorporating overdispersion within the framework of quasi‐likelihood estimation are reviewed as well as generalized linear mixed models, which form a broad scheme for model‐based analysis when overdispersion is present.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.153
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.602
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.153
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0140.000

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 head0.308
GPT teacher head0.532
Teacher spread0.224 · 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