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

Power Computations for Intervention Analysis

2005· article· en· W2016036751 on OpenAlexaff
A. Ian McLeod, Evelyn Vingilis

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.

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)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.101
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 score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.068

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.101
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0040.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0200.006

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

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

Citations26
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTechnometricsSame topicAdvanced Statistical Methods and ModelsFrench-language works237,207