MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2027010996 · doi:10.1093/biomet/93.3.671

Models for interval censoring and simulation-based inference for lifetime distributions

2006· article· en· W2027010996 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

VenueBiometrika · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistical Methods and Inference
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCensoring (clinical trials)InferenceMathematicsStatistical inferenceInterval (graph theory)StatisticsEconometricsComputer scienceCombinatoricsArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Interval-censored lifetime data arise when individuals in a study are inspected intermittently so that a lifetime is observed to lie between two successive times. In settings where only these two times are available, methods exist for nonparametric or parametric estimation of lifetime distributions. However, there has been virtually no discussion of how inspection processes may be estimated or identified. Such estimates are needed if one is to generate interval-censored data by simulation. This paper identifies which aspects of an independent inspection process are estimable from interval-censored data, and shows how to obtain nonparametric estimates. The results allow interval-censored data from any specified distribution to be generated, and give new simulation procedures for estimation or testing. A new omnibus goodness-of-fit test is introduced.

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)0.006
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.549
Threshold uncertainty score0.748

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.142
GPT teacher head0.417
Teacher spread0.275 · 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