MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1979895902 · doi:10.1080/00949650108812108

An m-estimation-based model selection criterion with a data-oriented penalty

2001· article· en· W1979895902 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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Statistical Computation and Simulation · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicAdvanced Statistical Methods and Models
Canadian institutionsYork University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsPenalty methodMathematicsSelection (genetic algorithm)Consistency (knowledge bases)Mathematical optimizationProperty (philosophy)Model selectionVariety (cybernetics)StatisticsComputer scienceArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In Wu and Zen (1999), a linear model selection procedure based on M-estimation is proposed, which includes many classical model selection criteria as its special cases, and it is shown that the selection procedure is strongly consistent for a variety of penalty functions. In this paper, we will investigate its small sample performances for some choices of fixed penalty functions. It can be seen that the performance varies with the choice of the penalty. Hence, a randomized penalty based on observed data is proposed, which preserves the consistency property and provides improved performance over a fixed choice of penalty functions.

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)0.001
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 score0.461
Threshold uncertainty score0.414

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.149
GPT teacher head0.485
Teacher spread0.336 · 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