Table 2 MLE for the second simulation, in which all reviewers had weak acumen
From: Maximum likelihood estimation of reviewers' acumen in central review setting: categorical data
| Â | R1 | R2 | R3 | R4 | R5 | R6 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.5 |
| 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.5 |
| 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.5 |
| 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.5 |
| 0.45 (0.16) | 0.46 (0.15) | 0.48 (0.15) | 0.47 (0.16) | 0.49 (0.15) | 0.49 (0.15) |
| 0.45 (0.16) | 0.46 (0.15) | 0.47 (0.16) | 0.48 (0.16) | 0.48 (0.15) | 0.5 (0.15) |
| 0.51 (0.15) | 0.52 (0.15) | 0.52 (0.15) | 0.53 (0.14) | 0.54 (0.14) | 0.54 (0.14) |
| 0.54 (0.16) | 0.54 (0.16) | 0.54 (0.16) | 0.53 (0.15) | 0.53 (0.15) | 0.53 (0.15) |
