MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2016036751 · doi:10.1198/004017005000000094

Power Computations for Intervention Analysis

2005· article· en· W2016036751 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.

Bibliographic record

VenueTechnometrics · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicAdvanced Statistical Methods and Models
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersNational Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism
KeywordsAutoregressive integrated moving averageTime seriesComputationComputer scienceSeries (stratigraphy)Autoregressive modelFunction (biology)Power (physics)Box–JenkinsMoving averageStatisticsMathematical optimizationMathematicsAlgorithmMachine learning

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In many intervention analysis applications, time series data may be expensive or otherwise difficult to collect. In this case the power function is helpful, because it can be used to determine the probability that a proposed intervention analysis application will detect a meaningful change. Assuming that an underlying autoregressive integrated moving average (ARIMA) or fractional ARIMA model is known or can be estimated from the preintervention time series, the methodology for computing the required power function is developed for pulse, step, and ramp interventions with ARIMA and fractional ARIMA errors. Convenient formulas for computing the power function for important special cases are given. Illustrative applications in traffic safety and environmental impact assessment are discussed.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.347
Threshold uncertainty score0.282

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
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 head0.138
GPT teacher head0.480
Teacher spread0.342 · 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