MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1968372036 · doi:10.1081/sac-120028440

Testing for No Effect in Functional Linear Regression Models, Some Computational Approaches

2004· article· en· W1968372036 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

VenueCommunications in Statistics - Simulation and Computation · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistical Methods and Inference
Canadian institutionsArtificial Intelligence in Medicine (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTest statisticMathematicsLinear regressionCovarianceCovariateResamplingFunctional data analysisLinear modelStatisticsProper linear modelPermutation (music)Regression analysisStatisticStatistical hypothesis testingBayesian multivariate linear regression

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The functional linear regression model is a regression model where the link between the response (a scalar) and the predictor (a random function) is expressed as an inner product between a functional coefficient and the predictor. Our aim is to test at first for no effect of the model, i.e., the nullity of the functional coefficient. A fully automatic permutation test based on the cross covariance operator of the predictor and the response is proposed. The model can be, in an obvious way, extended to the case of several functional predictors. When testing for no effect of some covariate on the response the permutation test is no longer valid. An alternative pseudo-likelihood ratio test statistic is then introduced. The procedure can be applied in some way to test partial nullity of a functional coefficient. All procedures are illustrated and compared by means of simulation studies.

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)0.003
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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.457
Threshold uncertainty score0.735

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
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 head0.493
GPT teacher head0.489
Teacher spread0.004 · 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