MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4283816293 · doi:10.1037/met0000512

Regression with reduced rank predictor matrices: A model of trade-offs.

2022· article· en· W4283816293 on OpenAlexaff
Mark L. Davison, Ernest C. Davenport, Hao Jia, Ben Seipel, Sarah E. Carlson

Bibliographic record

VenuePsychological Methods · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicMulti-Criteria Decision Making
Canadian institutionsLearning Partnership
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStatisticsMathematicsLinear regressionRegression analysisConstant (computer programming)RegressionRank (graph theory)Regression diagnosticVariable (mathematics)VariablesEconometricsCombinatoricsPolynomial regressionComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

∗ to variable v. The model is applied to multiple-choice test items that have four response categories, one correct and three incorrect. Results indicate that the expected outcome depends, not just on the student's number of correct answers, but also on how the student's incorrect responses are distributed over the three incorrect response types. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

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)0.026
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.077
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.137

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0260.077
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0050.005
Open science0.0040.002
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0190.008

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 head0.416
GPT teacher head0.557
Teacher spread0.141 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePsychological MethodsSame topicMulti-Criteria Decision MakingFrench-language works237,207