MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2009166315 · doi:10.1080/02664760902914482

Inference on <i>C</i> <sub>pk</sub> for autocorrelated data in the presence of random measurement errors

2009· article· en· W2009166315 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.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Applied Statistics · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicAdvanced Statistical Process Monitoring
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of Windsor
KeywordsAutocorrelationEstimatorAutoregressive modelObservational errorStatisticsEconometricsSampling (signal processing)MathematicsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The present paper examines the properties of the C pk estimator when observations are autocorrelated and affected by measurement errors. The underlying reason for this choice of subject matter is that in industrial applications, process data are often autocorrelated, especially when sampling frequency is not particularly low, and even with the most advanced measuring instruments, gauge imprecision needs to be taken into consideration. In the case of a first-order stationary autoregressive process, we compare the statistical properties of the estimator in the error case with those of the estimator in the error-free case. Results indicate that the presence of gauge measurement errors leads the estimator to behave differently depending on the entity of error variability.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.024
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.924
Threshold uncertainty score0.984

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.024
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.000
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 head0.196
GPT teacher head0.429
Teacher spread0.233 · 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