Bibliographic record
Abstract
A challenge in carrying out matching analyses is to deal with undefined log ratios. If any reinforcer or response rate equals zero, the logarithm of the ratio is undefined: data are unsuitable for analyses. There have been some tentative solutions, but they had not been thoroughly investigated. The purpose of this article is to assess the adequacy of five treatments: omit undefined ratios, use full information maximum likelihood, replace undefined ratios by the mean divided by 100, replace them by a constant 1/10, and add the constant .50 to ratios. Based on simulations, the treatments are compared on their estimations of variance accounted for, sensitivity, and bias. The results show that full information maximum likelihood and omiting undefined ratios had the best overall performance, with negligibly biased and more accurate estimates than mean divided by 100, constant 1/10, and constant .50. The study suggests that mean divided by 100, constant 1/10, and constant .50 should be avoided and recommends full information maximum likelihood to deal with undefined log ratios in matching analyses.
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 | 0.088 | 0.366 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.002 |
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".