MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1971333466 · doi:10.1080/10485250601046752

Risk comparison of some shrinkage M-estimators in linear models

2006· article· en· W1971333466 on OpenAlexafffund
S. Ejaz Ahmed, Abdulkadir Hussein, Pranab Kumar Sen

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of nonparametric statistics · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicAdvanced Statistical Process Monitoring
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsEstimatorMathematicsA priori and a posterioriApplied mathematicsLinear regressionLinear modelSubspace topologyAsymptotic distributionStatisticsAsymptotic analysisSampling (signal processing)Computer scienceMathematical analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The problem of robust estimation of a (linear) regression parameter (vector), in the presence of nuisance scale parameter, is considered when it is a priori suspected that the regression could be restricted to a linear subspace. Asymptotic properties of variants of Stein-rule M-estimators (including the positive-rule shrinkage M-estimators) are studied. Under an asymptotic distributional quadratic risk criterion, their relative dominance picture is explored, analytically as well as by simulation. An extensive sampling experiment is used to examine the small sample characteristics of the proposed estimators over a wide-range of data sampling designs and distributions. Our simulation experiments have provided strong evidence that corroborates with the asymptotic theory. Two examples are provided to illustrate the performance of the estimators in real-life situations.

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)0.025
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.076
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 score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.130

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0250.076
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.096
GPT teacher head0.435
Teacher spread0.339 · 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

Citations42
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of nonparametric statisticsSame topicAdvanced Statistical Process MonitoringFrench-language works237,207