MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

De Moivre's Poisson Approximation to the Binomial

2009· article· en· W2035849935 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

VenueInternational Statistical Review · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicProbability and Statistical Research
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersRoyal Society
KeywordsBinomial (polynomial)Poisson distributionMathematicsNegative binomial distributionWork (physics)Binomial distributionApplied mathematicsStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Summary In his first work on probability, written in 1711, Abraham De Moivre looked at the problem of finding the number of trials required in a binomial experiment to achieve a probability of 1/2 of finding at least some given number of successes. He looked at two cases: when the probability of success p = 1/2 and when p is small but n , the number of trials, is large. In the latter case, unlike other problems that he solved in probability, De Moivre never revealed his method of solution. We explore the solution that De Moivre originally suggests and find that his method does not work. We explore other numerical solutions and put forward the suggestion that De Moivre relied on a very cumbersome and tedious method of solution based on his earlier work on series in the 1690s. Since his method was neither quick nor mathematically elegant, he never revealed the method that he used to obtain his numerical solutions.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.022
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
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 score0.331
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.022
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.097
GPT teacher head0.457
Teacher spread0.360 · 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