MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1992354471 · doi:10.1002/cjs.5550330403

A generalized reflection method of boundary correction in kernel density estimation

2005· article· en· W1992354471 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
Rohana J. Karunamuni, Tom Alberts

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Statistics · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistical Methods and Inference
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsEstimatorSmoothnessKernel (algebra)Boundary (topology)Kernel density estimationVariable kernel density estimationMathematicsApplied mathematicsReflection (computer programming)Multivariate kernel density estimationKernel methodKernel smootherMathematical optimizationDensity estimationFunction (biology)Variance (accounting)AlgorithmComputer scienceSupport vector machineMathematical analysisStatisticsArtificial intelligenceRadial basis function kernel

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The kernel method of estimation of curves is now popular and widely used in statistical applications. Kernel estimators suffer from boundary effects, however, when the support of the function to be estimated has finite endpoints. Several solutions to this problem have already been proposed. Here the authors develop a new method of boundary correction for kernel density estimation. Their technique is a kind of generalized reflection involving transformed data. It generates a class of boundary corrected estimators having desirable properties such as local smoothness and nonnegativity. Simulations show that the proposed method performs quite well when compared with the existing methods for almost all shapes of densities. The authors present the theory behind this new methodology, and they determine the bias and variance of their estimators.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.022
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.030

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.022
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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 head0.087
GPT teacher head0.381
Teacher spread0.294 · 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

Citations54
Published2005
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of StatisticsSame topicStatistical Methods and InferenceFrench-language works237,207