MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2020209089 · doi:10.1002/cjs.5550360204

Likelihood and bayesian approaches to inference for the stationary point of a quadratic response surface

2008· article· en· W2020209089 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Valeria Sambucini, Ludovico Piccinato

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Statistics · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicOptimal Experimental Design Methods
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMathematicsBayesian probabilityStationary pointBayesian inferenceParametrization (atmospheric modeling)Applied mathematicsPoint (geometry)InferenceQuadratic equationPolynomialQuadratic functionPoint estimationAlgorithmStatisticsComputer scienceMathematical analysisArtificial intelligencePhysicsGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract In response surface analysis, a second order polynomial model is often used for inference on the stationary point of the response function. The standard confidence regions for the stationary point are due to Box & Hunter (1954). The authors propose an alternative parametrization, in which the stationary point is the parameter of interest; likelihood techniques and Bayesian analysis are then easier to perform. The authors also suggest an approximate method to get highest posterior density regions for the maximum point (not simply for the stationary point). Furthermore, they study the coverage probabilities of these Bayesian regions through simulations.

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)0.032
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.134
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 score0.032
Threshold uncertainty score0.169

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0320.134
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.003
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.005
Scholarly communication0.0030.004
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.322
GPT teacher head0.390
Teacher spread0.068 · 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

Citations3
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of StatisticsSame topicOptimal Experimental Design MethodsFrench-language works237,207