MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4255986436 · doi:10.1017/cbo9781139031998.006

Probability

2012· book-chapter· en· W4255986436 on OpenAlexaff
J. V. Wall, C. R. Jenkins

Bibliographic record

VenueCambridge University Press eBooks · 2012
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistics Education and Methodologies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Astronomical measurements are subject to random measurement error, perhaps more so than most physical sciences because of our inability to re-run experiments and our perpetual wish to observe at the extreme limit of instrumental capability. We have to express these errors as precisely and usefully as we can. Thus, when we say ‘an interval of 10-6 units, centred on the measured mass of the Moon, has a 95 per cent chance of containing the true value’, it is a much more quantitative statement than ‘the mass of the Moon is 1 ± 10-6 units’. The second statement really only means anything because of some unspoken assumption about the distribution of errors. Knowing the error distribution allows us to assign a probability, or measure of confidence, to the answer.

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 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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.823
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.265
GPT teacher head0.320
Teacher spread0.056 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCambridge University Press eBooksSame topicStatistics Education and MethodologiesFrench-language works237,207