Bibliographic record
Abstract
The shape of a probability distribution is often summarized by the distribution’s skewness and kurtosis. Starting from a symmetric “parent” density f on the real line, we can modify its shape (i.e. introduce skewness and in-/decrease kurtosis) if f is appropriately weighted. In particular, every density w on the interval (0; 1) is a specific weighting function. Within this work, we follow up a proposal of Jones (2004) and choose the Beta distribution asunderlying weighting function w. “Parent” distributions like the Student-t, the logistic and the normal distribution have already been investigated in the literature. Based on the assumption that f is the density of a hyperbolic secant distribution, we introduce the Beta-hyperbolic secant (BHS) distribution. In contrast to the Beta-normal distribution and to the Beta-Student-t distribution, BHS densities are always unimodal and all moments exist. In contrast to the Beta-logistic distribution, the BHS distribution is more flexibleregarding the range of skewness and leptokurtosis combinations. Moreover,we propose a generalization which nests both the Beta-logistic and the BHS distribution. Finally, the goodness-of-fit between all above-mentioned distributions is compared for glass fibre data and aluminium returns.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.003 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".