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

Best monotone M‐estimators

2003· article· en· W2052283427 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
Adam W. Kolkiewicz

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.

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)0.081
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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.065

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.081
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.004
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0030.003
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 head0.112
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

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

Citations1
Published2003
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of StatisticsSame topicAdvanced Statistical Methods and ModelsFrench-language works237,207