Cited by 8Ethics and Social Impacts of AIImbalanced Data Classification TechniquesArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare

The great methods bake-off: Comparing performance of machine learning algorithms

Kigerl, Alex, Hamilton, Zachary, Kowalski, Melissa, Mei, Xiaohan·2022·Journal of Criminal Justice

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2022.101946

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kigerl, A., Hamilton, Z., Kowalski, M., & Mei, X.
Affiliations
  • University of Nebraska at Omaha (US)
  • California State University Los Angeles (US)
Corresponding author
Hamilton, Zachary
Venue
Journal of Criminal Justice
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2022-09
Volume
82
Pages
101946
ISSN
0047-2352 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4281619588
Cited by
8
References
4
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 3
FWCI
1.74
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Criminal Justice (publishedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Imbalanced Data Classification Techniques
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare
Keywords
risk assessment, machine learning, algorithm comparison, sample size, base rates, stacking, artificial neural networks, random forest, support vector machine, k-nearest neighbors, penalized regression, logistic regression, model transparency, algorithmic bias

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review