MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2058528468 · doi:10.1515/eqc-2013-0011

Empirical Likelihood Based Control Charts

2013· article· en· W2058528468 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.

Bibliographic record

VenueEconomic Quality Control · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicAdvanced Statistical Process Monitoring
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsControl chartComputer scienceStatisticChartShewhart individuals control chartResamplingStatisticsEWMA chartQuality (philosophy)Control (management)Empirical distribution functionControl limitsEconometricsProcess (computing)MathematicsArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The success of the implementation of control chart depends upon the assumptions made on the distribution of the quality characteristics. If the distributional assumption deviates too much from the true one or if it is misspecified, the performance of the control chart is seriously affected and one may make wrong conclusions about the process. To avoid such situations, we propose a new class of control chart based on the empirical likelihood (EL). We propose to monitor the EL ratio statistic for mean and use resampling method to arrive at its empirical distribution which is inverted to obtain the control limits. Our simulation results clearly indicated that EL control charts have a comparable performance with Shewhart control chart, when the distribution of the quality characteristic follows a normal distribution. When the distribution of quality characteristics are misspecified, the EL control chart shows a better performance with all competing control charts. Finally, our proposed method is illustrated by a real example.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.831
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.014

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 head0.122
GPT teacher head0.446
Teacher spread0.324 · 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