MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2063301308 · doi:10.1080/02664760802124455

Statistical inference for start-up demonstration tests with rejection of units upon observing<i>d</i>failures

2008· article· en· W2063301308 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

VenueJournal of Applied Statistics · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistical Methods in Clinical Trials
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
FundersChinese University of Hong KongUniversity of Hong Kong
KeywordsInferenceEstimatorStatistical inferenceLikelihood functionComputer scienceBayesian probabilityStatisticsBayesian inferenceMaximum likelihoodExpectation–maximization algorithmMathematicsSample (material)EconometricsArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, we consider the statistical inference for the success probability in the case of start-up demonstration tests in which rejection of units is possible when a pre-fixed number of failures is observed before the required number of consecutive successes are achieved for acceptance of the unit. Since the expected value of the stopping time is not a monotone function of the unknown parameter, the method of moments is not useful in this situation. Therefore, we discuss two estimation methods for the success probability: (1) the maximum likelihood estimation (MLE) via the expectation-maximization (EM) algorithm and (2) Bayesian estimation with a beta prior. We examine the small-sample properties of the MLE and Bayesian estimator. Finally, we present an example to illustrate the method of inference discussed here.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.049
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
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 score0.250
Threshold uncertainty score0.959

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.049
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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 head0.442
GPT teacher head0.490
Teacher spread0.047 · 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