MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2038338945 · doi:10.1111/1467-9469.00247

Heteroscedastic Regression Models and Applications to Off‐line Quality Control

2001· article· en· W2038338945 on OpenAlexaff
Lai K. Chan, Tak K. Mak

Bibliographic record

VenueScandinavian Journal of Statistics · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicOptimal Experimental Design Methods
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHeteroscedasticityEstimatorLikelihood functionMathematicsComputer scienceMathematical optimizationMinificationVariance functionVariance (accounting)EconometricsEstimation theoryStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We discuss in the present paper the analysis of heteroscedastic regression models and their applications to off‐line quality control problems. It is well known that the method of pseudo‐likelihood is usually preferred to full maximum likelihood since estimators of the parameters in the regression function obtained are more robust to misspecification of the variance function. Despite its popularity, however, existing theoretical results are difficult to apply and are of limited use in many applications. Using more recent results in estimating equations, we obtain an efficient algorithm for computing the pseudo‐likelihood estimator with desirable convergence properties and also derive simple, explicit and easy to apply asymptotic results. These results are used to look in detail at variance minimization in off‐line quality control, yielding techniques of inferences for the optimized design parameter. In application of some existing approaches to off‐line quality control, such as the dual response methodology, rigorous statistical inference techniques are scarce and difficult to obtain. An example of off‐line quality control is presented to discuss the practical aspects involved in the application of the results obtained and to address issues such as data transformation, model building and the optimization of design parameters. The analysis shows very encouraging results, and is seen to be able to unveil some important information not found in previous analyses.

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)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.028
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 score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.065

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.028
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.211
GPT teacher head0.503
Teacher spread0.292 · 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

Citations2
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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