MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1989499452 · doi:10.1198/016214505000001177

Bent-Cable Regression Theory and Applications

2006· article· en· W1989499452 on OpenAlexaff
Grace S. Chiu, Richard Lockhart, Richard Routledge

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the American Statistical Association · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicSoil Geostatistics and Mapping
Canadian institutionsNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBent molecular geometryMathematicsPiecewise linear functionEstimatorLinear regressionAsymptotic distributionMultivariate normal distributionQuadratic equationApplied mathematicsPiecewiseSegmented regressionLinear modelMathematical analysisStatisticsGeometryMultivariate statisticsBayesian multivariate linear regressionStructural engineeringEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We use the so-called “bent-cable” model to describe natural phenomena that exhibit a potentially sharp change in slope. The model comprises two linear segments, joined smoothly by a quadratic bend. The class of bent cables includes, as a limiting case, the popular piecewise-linear model (with a sharp kink), otherwise known as the broken stick. Associated with bent-cable regression is the estimation of the bend-width parameter, through which the abruptness of the underlying transition may be assessed. We present worked examples and simulations to demonstrate the regularity and irregularity of bent-cable regression encountered in finite-sample settings. We also extend existing bent-cable asymptotics that previously were limited to the basic model with known linear slopes of 0 and 1. Practical conditions on the design are given to ensure regularity of the full bent-cable estimation problem if the underlying bend segment has nonzero width. Under such conditions, the least-squares estimators are shown to be consistent and to asymptotically follow a multivariate normal distribution. Furthermore, the deviance statistic (or the likelihood ratio statistic, if the random errors are normally distributed) is shown to have an asymptotic chi-squared distribution.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.002

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 head0.003
GPT teacher head0.232
Teacher spread0.229 · 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

Citations84
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the American Statistical AssociationSame topicSoil Geostatistics and MappingFrench-language works237,207