MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4256045669 · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-15483/v2

Explaining the variation in the attained power of a stepped-wedge trial with unequal cluster sizes

2020· preprint· en· W4256045669 on OpenAlexafffund
Yongdong Ouyang, Mohammad Ehsanul Karim, Paul Gustafson, Thalia S. Field, Hubert Wong

Bibliographic record

VenueResearch Square · 2020
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistical Methods in Clinical Trials
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersServierBayer CanadaVancouver Coastal Health Research InstituteBiogenMichael Smith Health Research BCCompute CanadaWestern Canada Research GridHeart and Stroke Foundation of Canada
KeywordsWedge (geometry)Cluster (spacecraft)Variation (astronomy)StatisticsEconometricsMathematicsComputer sciencePhysicsGeometryAstrophysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex
No abstract in any covered source. Its absence is recorded, not treated as a negative.

No abstract. This is not a gap in this database; OpenAlex has none either. 23.3% of the frame is in this state, and the screen finds HALF as much metaresearch here, so the absence is a measured bias rather than a missing field.

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)0.185
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.507
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.815
Threshold uncertainty score0.977

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1850.507
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.004
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.005
Scholarly communication0.0030.005
Open science0.0050.003
Research integrity0.0050.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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 head0.677
GPT teacher head0.619
Teacher spread0.059 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
DomainMethods
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueResearch SquareSame topicStatistical Methods in Clinical TrialsFrench-language works237,207