MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2063355485 · doi:10.2307/3316015

Corrigenda: Confidence curves and improved exact confidence intervals for discrete distribution

2001· article· en· W2063355485 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Helge Blaker

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Statistics · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicProbability and Statistical Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConfidence intervalConfidence distributionMathematicsDistribution (mathematics)SentenceStatisticsPhenomenonCalculus (dental)Discrete mathematicsAlgorithmComputer scienceMathematical analysisPhilosophyArtificial intelligenceEpistemology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Due to a typesetting error, the second sentence in the proof of Theorem 2 on page 792 was garbled. It should read, “It suffices to consider confidence intervals when x = 1 is observed, although this phenomenon always occurs if the rejection regions involve probabilities from both tails.”

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)0.016
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.240
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: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.034
Threshold uncertainty score0.112

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0160.240
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0050.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0040.005
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0020.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0340.009

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 head0.094
GPT teacher head0.358
Teacher spread0.264 · 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
GenreOther

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

Citations7
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of StatisticsSame topicProbability and Statistical ResearchFrench-language works237,207