MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1973353515 · doi:10.2307/3316054

An adaptive randomized design with application to estimation

2001· article· en· W1973353515 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Vincent Melfi, Connie Page, Margarida Geraldes

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Statistics · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicOptimal Experimental Design Methods
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAdaptive designEstimationSimple (philosophy)Computer scienceMathematicsMathematical optimizationPopulationCompletely randomized designStatisticsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract When allocating observations to two populations for estimation or testing, the optimal proportion of the data that should be allocated to the first population, if it exists, often depends on unknown parameters. Adaptive designs have thus been proposed, in which allocation of the next observation is based on an estimate of the optimal proportion computed from the data already gathered. The authors introduce a simple randomized adaptive design and give some of its properties. Applications are given to estimating the difference of two success probabilities, and the difference of two normal means.

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)0.036
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.080
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.964
Threshold uncertainty score0.192

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0360.080
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.004
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.107
GPT teacher head0.400
Teacher spread0.293 · 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.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
DomainMethods
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

Citations83
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of StatisticsSame topicOptimal Experimental Design MethodsFrench-language works237,207