MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1602858783 · doi:10.1002/sta4.40

When are first‒order asymptotics adequate? A diagnostic

2014· article· en· W1602858783 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

VenueStat · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistical Methods and Inference
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersEngineering and Physical Sciences Research Council
KeywordsCollinearityBoundary (topology)InferenceClass (philosophy)SkewnessAsymptotic analysisEconometricsMathematicsSample (material)Logistic regressionApplied mathematicsMathematical economicsComputer scienceStatisticsMathematical analysisArtificial intelligencePhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper looks at boundary effects on inference in an important class of models including, notably, logistic regression. Asymptotic results are not uniform across such models. Accordingly, whatever their order, methods asymptotic in sample size will ultimately “break down” as the boundary is approached, in the sense that effects such as infinite skewness, discreteness and collinearity will dominate. In this paper, a highly interpretable diagnostic tool is proposed, allowing the analyst to check if the boundary is going to have an appreciable effect on standard inferential techniques. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

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)0.021
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
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 score0.267
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.021
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.064
GPT teacher head0.339
Teacher spread0.274 · 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