MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2025359816 · doi:10.1239/jap/1011994181

Distribution of the scan statistic for a sequence of bistate trials

2001· article· en· W2025359816 on OpenAlexaff
James C. Fu

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Applied Probability · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistical Methods and Inference
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBernoulli trialScan statisticSequence (biology)StatisticBernoulli distributionMarkov chainMathematicsBernoulli's principleDistribution (mathematics)Applied mathematicsAlgorithmStatisticsRandom variableMathematical analysisPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Let be the scan statistic of window size r for a sequence of n bistate trials . The scan statistic S n ( r ) has been successfully used in various fields of applied probability and statistics, and its distribution has been studied extensively in the literature. Currently, all existing formulae for the distribution of S n ( r ) are rather complex, and they can only be numerically implemented when is a sequence of Bernoulli trials, the window size r is less than 20 and the length of the sequence n is not too large. Hence, these formulae have been limiting the practical applications of the scan statistic. In this article, we derive a simple and effective formula for the distribution of S n ( r ) via the finite Markov chain embedding technique to overcome some of the limitations of the existing complex formulae. This new formula can be applied when is either a sequence of Bernoulli trials or a sequence of Markov dependent bistate trials. Selected numerical examples are given to illustrate our results.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.070
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.050

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.070
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.003
Scholarly communication0.0010.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.246
GPT teacher head0.429
Teacher spread0.183 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations54
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Applied ProbabilitySame topicStatistical Methods and InferenceFrench-language works237,207