MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1512911331 · doi:10.1002/0471219282.eot174

Maximum‐Likelihood Estimation

2003· other· en· W1512911331 on OpenAlexaff
Simon Haykin

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typeother
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicAdvanced Statistical Methods and Models
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsExpectation–maximization algorithmMaximum likelihood sequence estimationMaximum likelihoodLikelihood functionMathematicsEstimatorM-estimatorRestricted maximum likelihoodStatisticsEstimation theoryLikelihood principleApplied mathematicsMaximizationMathematical optimizationQuasi-maximum likelihood

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This article addresses different facets of maximum likelihood estimation. Starting with the likelihood function, the Cramér‐Rao inequality and properties of maximum likelihood estimators are described. Another estimator, namely, the conditional mean estimator, is discussed. An iterative algorithm, known as the Expectation‐Maximization (EM) algorithm, for computing the maximum likelihood estimate is described.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.041
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.072

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.041
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0050.004
Open science0.0040.003
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0210.010

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 head0.081
GPT teacher head0.417
Teacher spread0.336 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations4
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAdvanced Statistical Methods and ModelsFrench-language works237,207