MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4280638718 · doi:10.1080/24754269.2022.2075083

Discussion of “A selective review of statistical methods using calibration information from similar studies” and some remarks on data integration

2022· article· en· W4280638718 on OpenAlexaff
Jerald F. Lawless

Bibliographic record

VenueStatistical Theory and Related Fields · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistical Methods and Inference
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCalibrationComputer scienceData scienceInformation retrievalEconometricsData miningStatisticsMathematics

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)0.060
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.117
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.940
Threshold uncertainty score0.316

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0600.117
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.003
Bibliometrics0.0060.008
Science and technology studies0.0020.008
Scholarly communication0.0050.007
Open science0.0070.003
Research integrity0.0090.010
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.004

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 head0.094
GPT teacher head0.447
Teacher spread0.353 · 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 designNot applicable
DomainMethods
GenreCommentary

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
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueStatistical Theory and Related FieldsSame topicStatistical Methods and InferenceFrench-language works237,207