Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary Pooling of data is often carried out to protect privacy or to save cost, with the claimed advantage that it does not lead to much loss of efficiency. We argue that this does not give the complete picture as the estimation of different parameters is affected to different degrees by pooling. We establish a ladder of efficiency loss for estimating the mean, variance, skewness and kurtosis, and more generally multivariate joint cumulants, in powers of the pool size. The asymptotic efficiency of the pooled data non‐parametric/parametric maximum likelihood estimator relative to the corresponding unpooled data estimator is reduced by a factor equal to the pool size whenever the order of the cumulant to be estimated is increased by one. The implications of this result are demonstrated in case–control genetic association studies with interactions between genes. Our findings provide a guideline for the discriminate use of data pooling in practice and the assessment of its relative efficiency. As exact maximum likelihood estimates are difficult to obtain if the pool size is large, we address briefly how to obtain computationally efficient estimates from pooled data and suggest Gaussian estimation and non‐parametric maximum likelihood as two feasible methods.
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 | 0.192 | 0.425 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".