MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Bias‐Corrected Maximum Likelihood Estimator of the Negative Binomial Dispersion Parameter

2005· article· en· W1997934667 on OpenAlexafffund
Krishna K. Saha, S. R. Paul

Bibliographic record

VenueBiometrics · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicSurvey Sampling and Estimation Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsMathematicsStatisticsEstimatorNegative binomial distributionRestricted maximum likelihoodQuasi-likelihoodBias of an estimatorMaximum likelihoodMinimum-variance unbiased estimatorPoisson distribution

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We derive a first-order bias-corrected maximum likelihood estimator for the negative binomial dispersion parameter. This estimator is compared, in terms of bias and efficiency, with the maximum likelihood estimator investigated by Piegorsch (1990, Biometrics46, 863-867), the moment and the maximum extended quasi-likelihood estimators investigated by Clark and Perry (1989, Biometrics45, 309-316), and a double-extended quasi-likelihood estimator. The bias-corrected maximum likelihood estimator has superior bias and efficiency properties in most instances. For ease of comparison we give results for the two-parameter negative binomial model. However, an example involving negative binomial regression 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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.035
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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.039

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.035
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.002

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 head0.110
GPT teacher head0.334
Teacher spread0.224 · 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

Citations122
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBiometricsSame topicSurvey Sampling and Estimation TechniquesFrench-language works237,207