MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4403053269 · doi:10.1080/07350015.2024.2393722

Imputation of Counterfactual Outcomes when the Errors are Predictable: Rejoinder

2024· article· en· W4403053269 on OpenAlexaff
Śılvia Gonçalves, Serena Ng

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Business and Economic Statistics · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicForecasting Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersNational Science Foundation
KeywordsCounterfactual thinkingImputation (statistics)EconometricsComputer sciencePsychologyStatisticsMissing dataEconomicsMathematicsSocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We thank Bruno Ferman (BF), Marcelo Medeiros (MM), Yuya Sasaki (YS), and Kaspar Wüthrich (KW) for their constructive comments on our paper. Below are some further thoughts.1 The discussants offered...

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)0.170
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.450
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.170
Threshold uncertainty score0.900

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1700.450
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.010
Scholarly communication0.0050.010
Open science0.0080.008
Research integrity0.0140.021
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.085
GPT teacher head0.358
Teacher spread0.273 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Business and Economic StatisticsSame topicForecasting Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207