Table 3 MLE for the third simulation, in which reviewers had mixed acumen
From: Maximum likelihood estimation of reviewers' acumen in central review setting: categorical data
| Â | R1 | R2 | R3 | R4 | R5 | R6 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0.5 | 0.9 | 0.9 | 0.7 | 0.9 | 0.9 |
| 0.7 | 0.9 | 0.9 | 0.9 | 0.5 | 0.9 |
| 0.8 | 0.7 | 0.6 | 0.9 | 0.9 | 0.9 |
| 0.8 | 0.9 | 0.6 | 0.9 | 0.7 | 0.9 |
| 0.5 (0.16) | 0.88 (0.11) | 0.88 (0.16) | 0.69 (0.14) | 0.88 (0.18) | 0.87 (0.07) |
| 0.7 (0.16) | 0.87 (0.11) | 0.88 (0.17) | 0.87 (0.11) | 0.5 (0.2) | 0.86 (0.08) |
| 0.8 (0.14) | 0.7 (0.12) | 0.6 (0.17) | 0.89 (0.11) | 0.9 (0.17) | 0.88 (0.06) |
| 0.81 (0.14) | 0.91 (0.1) | 0.6 (0.18) | 0.9 (0.1) | 0.7 (0.19) | 0.9 (0.06) |
