MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2052283427 · doi:10.2307/3316090

Best monotone M‐estimators

2003· article· en· W2052283427 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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Statistics · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicAdvanced Statistical Methods and Models
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsEstimatorMonotone polygonMathematicsNeighbourhood (mathematics)Applied mathematicsExtension (predicate logic)Simple (philosophy)Sequence (biology)Monotonic functionClass (philosophy)Function (biology)Distribution (mathematics)Mathematical optimizationStatisticsComputer scienceMathematical analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The author shows how to find M‐estimators of location whose generating function is monotone and which are optimal or close to optimal. It is easy to identify a consistent sequence of estimators in this class. In addition, it contains simple and efficient approximations in cases where the likelihood function is difficult to obtain. In some neighbourhoods of the normal distribution, the loss of efficiency due to the approximation is quite small. Optimal monotone M‐estimators can also be determined in cases when the underlying distribution is known only up to a certain neighbourhood. The author considers the e‐contamination model and an extension thereof that allows the distributions to be arbitrary outside compact intervals. His results also have implications for distributions with monotone score functions. The author illustrates his methodology using Student and stable distributions.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.090
Threshold uncertainty score0.755

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.006
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.112
GPT teacher head0.381
Teacher spread0.269 · 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