MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1532769753 · doi:10.1214/lnms/1196285377

Estimation in restricted parameter spaces: a review

2004· review· en· W1532769753 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueLecture notes-monograph series · 2004
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistical Methods and Inference
Canadian institutionsNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaUniversity of New Brunswick
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEstimatorMaximum likelihoodFocus (optics)EstimationPresentation (obstetrics)MathematicsSeries (stratigraphy)Estimation theoryApplied mathematicsEconometricsComputer scienceStatisticsMathematical optimizationEngineeringGeologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<!-- *** Custom HTML *** --> In this review of estimation problems in restricted parameter spaces, we focus through a series of illustrations on a number of methods that have proven to be successful. These methods relate to the decision-theoretic aspects of admissibility and minimaxity, as well as to the determination of dominating estimators of inadmissible procedures obtained for instance from the criteria of unbiasedness, maximum likelihood, or minimum risk equivariance. Finally, we accompany the presentation of these methods with various related historical developments.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.880
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.104
GPT teacher head0.410
Teacher spread0.306 · 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