MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1899429405

Dependent Bootstrap Confidence Intervals for a Population Mean

2009· article· en· W1899429405 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

VenueUWA Profiles and Research Repository (University of Western Australia) · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicAdvanced Statistical Methods and Models
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Regina
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConfidence intervalStatisticsRobust confidence intervalsCDF-based nonparametric confidence intervalPercentileMathematicsCoverage probabilityConfidence distributionBootstrapping (finance)PopulationCredible intervalTolerance intervalSample size determinationPopulation meanEconometricsDemography
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study compares and analyzes the coverage probabilities and the averageinterval lengths of confidence interval for a population mean based on the dependentbootstrap procedure against those based on the independent bootstrap procedure. Bothdependent and independent bootstrap confidence intervals for a population mean arecomputed by the Bootstrap-t, Percentile, and Modified Percentile methods. Simulationsshow that the coverage probabilities of the dependent bootstrap confidence intervals aresimilar to those of the independent bootstrap confidence intervals. The average intervallengths of the dependent bootstrap method are shorter for most situations. For both theindependent and dependent bootstrap confidence intervals, the coverage probabilitiesincrease and the average interval lengths decrease as the sample size n increase for Normal, Gamma, and Chi-square distributions, as well as three methods used in this work.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.166
Threshold uncertainty score0.421

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.336
GPT teacher head0.481
Teacher spread0.145 · 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