An Interactive Spreadsheet Model for Teaching Classification Using Logistic Regression
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We present an interactive spreadsheet that supports teaching essential concepts in classification using the logistic regression (LoR) model for binary classification. The interactive spreadsheet demonstrates the capabilities of LoR by integrating computation with visualization. Students will reinforce concepts like probabilities, maximum likelihood estimation (MLE), and the use of likelihoods to optimize parameters for the LoR. We then discuss using LoR for classifications while adjusting its decision boundary (DB), demonstrating how to convert assigned likelihoods into classification using the DB; impact classification outcome by varying DBs; designate predictions as true positive, true negative, false positive, or false negative; and determine the classification accuracy. We use a variety of performance measures, including sensitivity, specificity, precision, negative predictive value, F1 and F2 scores, the receiver operating characteristics curve, and lift/decile charts. These measures are dynamically adjusted when the DB changes. We also reiterate the usage of these measures in the context of crossvalidation and imbalanced data sets. We provide a case study that implements LoR and an option for teaching the details behind MLE. We discuss the pedagogical aspects of this spreadsheet based on a survey of the 2022 student cohort in the Master of Management Analytics Program at the Rotman School of Management.
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 | 0.003 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.066 | 0.019 |
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".