Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract On average, randomization achieves balance in covariate distributions between treatment groups; yet in practice, chance imbalance exists post randomization, which increases the error in estimating treatment effects. This is an important issue, especially in cluster randomized trials, where the experimental units (the clusters) are highly heterogeneous and relatively few in number. To address this, several restricted randomization designs have been proposed to balance on a few covariates of particular interest. More recently, approaches involving rerandomization have been proposed that aim to achieve simultaneous balance on several important prognostic factors. In this article, we comment on some properties of rerandomized designs and propose a new design for comparing two or more treatments. This design combines optimal nonbipartite matching of the subjects together with rerandomization, both aimed at minimizing a measure of distance between elements in blocks to achieve reductions in the mean squared error of estimated treatment effects. Compared with the existing alternatives, the proposed design can substantially reduce the mean squared error of the estimated treatment effect. This enhanced efficiency is evaluated both theoretically and empirically, and robustness properties are also noted. The design is generalized to three or more treatment arms.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.028 | 0.069 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".