MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1981589301 · doi:10.1080/02331880902757831

A bivariate density estimation method based on level crossings

2009· article· en· W1981589301 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Mei Ling Huang, Wai Kong Yuen

Bibliographic record

VenueStatistics · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistical Distribution Estimation and Applications
Canadian institutionsBrock University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsBivariate analysisMathematicsEstimatorKernel density estimationNonparametric statisticsStatisticsEmpirical distribution functionEconometricsJoint probability distributionSample (material)Bivariate dataMultivariate kernel density estimationLevel crossingDensity estimationKernel methodVariable kernel density estimationComputer scienceGeographyArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article introduces a method of nonparametric bivariate density estimation based on a bivariate sample level crossing function, which leads to the construction of a bivariate level crossing empirical distribution function (BLCEDF). An efficiency function for this BLCEDF relative to the classical empirical distribution function (EDF), is derived. The BLCEDF gives more efficient estimates than the EDF in the tails of any underlying continuous distribution, for both small and large sample sizes. On the basis of BLCEDF we define a bivariate level crossing kernel density estimator (BLCKDE) and study its properties. We apply the BLCEDF and BLCKDE for various distributions and provide results of simulations that confirm the theoretical properties. A real-world example is given.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.019
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: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.027

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.019
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.124
GPT teacher head0.443
Teacher spread0.319 · 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

Citations0
Published2009
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStatisticsSame topicStatistical Distribution Estimation and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207