MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1985291801 · doi:10.2307/3315906

Robust estimation and design procedures for the random effects model

2003· article· en· W1985291801 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.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Statistics · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicAdvanced Statistical Methods and Models
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEstimatorOutlierVariance (accounting)Robust statisticsComputer scienceVariance componentsRandom effects modelSample (material)Robustness (evolution)MathematicsPoint (geometry)Point estimationStatisticsAlgorithm

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The authors discuss two robust estimators for estimating variance components in the random effects model, and they obtain finite‐sample breakdown points for the estimators. Based on the finite‐sample breakdown point, they propose a criterion for selecting robust designs. With robust designs, one can get efficient and reliable estimates for variance components regardless of outliers which may happen in the experiment. The authors give examples to show the performance of robust estimators and to compare robust designs with optimal designs based on the traditional analysis of variance estimation method.

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)0.017
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
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 score0.284
Threshold uncertainty score0.991

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.017
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 head0.133
GPT teacher head0.355
Teacher spread0.222 · 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