MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414799369 · doi:10.1080/09332480.2025.2560277

Lionel Penrose’s Statistical Consultant and Lessons from the Statistical “Sudoku” They Left Us

2025· article· en· W4414799369 on OpenAlexaff
James A. Hanley, Supratik Roy

Bibliographic record

VenueCHANCE · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicBusiness Strategy and Innovation
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStatistical analysisStatistical discrimination

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Lionel Penrose's Citation1933 study was one of the first to establish that ``the father's age is not a significant factor in the risk of Down's syndrome, while the mother's age is to be regarded as very important.'' We identify the statistical consultant who helped Penrose improve on the prevailing regression methods for handling binary responses. Using a form of ‘statistical sudoku’ we explain how to create complete datasets from the summary data Penrose worked with and shared. And we describe the surprises we got when we applied modern methods to these datasets.

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)0.129
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.578
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.129
Threshold uncertainty score0.684

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1290.578
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.011
Science and technology studies0.0030.011
Scholarly communication0.0100.012
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0050.026
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0170.013

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.247 · 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
GenreOther

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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCHANCESame topicBusiness Strategy and InnovationFrench-language works237,207