MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4310482382 · doi:10.1080/03610926.2022.2150062

A fortune cookie problem: A test for nominal data whether two samples are from the same population of equally likely elements

2022· article· en· W4310482382 on OpenAlexaff
Jiangtao Gou, Karen Ruth, Stanley Basickes, Samuel Litwin

Bibliographic record

VenueCommunication in Statistics- Theory and Methods · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistical Methods in Clinical Trials
Canadian institutionsGreenfield Research (Canada)
FundersNational Cancer Institute
KeywordsTest (biology)StatisticsPopulationMathematicsEconometricsBiologyDemographySociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article considers a way to test the hypothesis that two collections of objects are from the same uniform distribution of such objects. The exact p-value is calculated based on the distribution for the observed overlaps. In addition, an interval estimate of the number of distinct objects, when all objects are equally likely, is indicated.

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)0.122
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.521
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.122
Threshold uncertainty score0.644

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1220.521
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.003
Bibliometrics0.0060.005
Science and technology studies0.0030.014
Scholarly communication0.0040.008
Open science0.0040.005
Research integrity0.0070.009
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 head0.643
GPT teacher head0.613
Teacher spread0.030 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations1
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCommunication in Statistics- Theory and MethodsSame topicStatistical Methods in Clinical TrialsFrench-language works237,207