MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2047283491 · doi:10.1155/2014/838625

Sum of Bernoulli Mixtures: Beyond Conditional Independence

2014· article· en· W2047283491 on OpenAlexaff
Taehan Bae, Ian Iscoe

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Probability and Statistics · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicCredit Risk and Financial Regulations
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Regina
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMathematicsBernoulli's principleMixing (physics)Bernoulli distributionRandom variableConditional probability distributionBeta-binomial distributionIndependence (probability theory)Event (particle physics)StatisticsBinomial distributionConditional independenceLimit (mathematics)Applied mathematicsJoint probability distributionEconometricsStatistical physicsNegative binomial distributionMathematical analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We consider the distribution of the sum of Bernoulli mixtures under a general dependence structure. The level of dependence is measured in terms of a limiting conditional correlation between two of the Bernoulli random variables. The conditioning event is that the mixing random variable is larger than a threshold and the limit is with respect to the threshold tending to one. The large-sample distribution of the empirical frequency and its use in approximating the risk measures, value at risk and conditional tail expectation, are presented for a new class of models which we call double mixtures . Several illustrative examples with a Beta mixing distribution, are given. As well, some data from the area of credit risk are fit with the models, and comparisons are made between the new models and also the classical Beta-binomial model.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.025
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: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.025
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.004
Scholarly communication0.0030.006
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0020.004
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.230
Teacher spread0.209 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations1
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Probability and StatisticsSame topicCredit Risk and Financial RegulationsFrench-language works237,207