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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Conventional supervised statistical learning models aim to achieve high accuracy in predicting the value of an outcome measure based on a number of input measures. However, in many applications, some type of action is randomized on the observational units. This is the case, for example, in treatment/control settings, such as those usually encountered in marketing and clinical trial applications. In these situations, we may not necessarily be interested in predicting the outcome itself, but in estimating the expected change in the outcome as a result of the action. This is precisely the idea behind uplift models, which, despite their many practical applications, have received little attention in the literature. In this article, we extend the state-of-the-art research in this area by proposing a new approach based on Random Forests. We perform carefully designed experiments using simple simulation models to illustrate some of the properties of the proposed method. In addition, we present evidence on a dataset pertaining to a large Canadian insurer on a customer retention case. The results confirm the effectiveness of the proposed method and show favorable performance relative to other existing uplift modeling approaches.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.002 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it