MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2031349366 · doi:10.5539/jmr.v2n4p64

The Analysis of Bootstrap Method in Linear Regression Effect

2010· article· en· W2031349366 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jiehan Zhu, Ping Jing

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Mathematics Research · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Algorithms and Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMathematicsStatisticsConfidence intervalLinear regressionRegression dilutionRegression analysisRegressionDistribution (mathematics)CDF-based nonparametric confidence intervalPolynomial regressionMathematical analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper combines the least squaress estimate, least absolute deviation estimate, least median estimate with Bootstrapmethod. When the overall error distribution is unknown or it is not the normal distribution, we estimate the regression coefficientand confidence interval of coefficient, and through data simulation, obtain Bootstrap method, which can improvestability of regression coefficient and reduce the length of confidence interval.

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)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.041
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 score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.061

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.041
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.059
GPT teacher head0.471
Teacher spread0.412 · 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

Citations17
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Mathematics ResearchSame topicAdvanced Algorithms and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207