MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1966418188 · doi:10.2307/3316079

Goodness‐of‐fit tests for the hyperbolic distribution

2001· article· en· W1966418188 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Pedro Puig, Michael A. Stephens

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Statistics · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicProbability and Statistical Research
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGoodness of fitMathematicsStatisticStatisticsDistribution (mathematics)Applied mathematicsEconometricsMathematical analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The authors give tests of fit for the hyperbolic distribution, based on the Cramér‐von Mises statistic W 2 . They consider the general case with four parameters unknown, and some specific cases where one or two parameters are fixed. They give two examples using stock price data.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.026
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.226
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.138

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0260.226
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0050.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.004
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.002

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 head0.191
GPT teacher head0.381
Teacher spread0.190 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations9
Published2001
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of StatisticsSame topicProbability and Statistical ResearchFrench-language works237,207