MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1916674000 · doi:10.1139/cjce-2012-0427

Plotting positions for fitting distributions and extreme value analysis

2013· article· en· W1916674000 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.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Civil Engineering · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicProbabilistic and Robust Engineering Design
Canadian institutionsCentre For Cold Ocean Resources Engineering
Fundersnot available
KeywordsExtreme value theoryPosition (finance)Probability distributionComputer scienceBasis (linear algebra)Selection (genetic algorithm)Value (mathematics)Advice (programming)StatisticsDistribution (mathematics)MathematicsArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Random data are often examined on plotting paper to determine appropriate probability distributions and distribution parameters for extreme-value analyses and other applications. Engineers are not always aware of criteria that have been developed and published for selecting the type of probability paper, nor of the impact that the selection can have on results. Some of the advice available in the literature is inaccurate, so it is important that the basis for using the correct method be clearly demonstrated. In the present paper, it is confirmed using straightforward simulation techniques that use of plotting position methods specific to the distribution being considered is appropriate and that use of other plotting position methods can give inaccurate results.

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)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.957
Threshold uncertainty score0.549

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.210 · 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