MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2066134817 · doi:10.1111/rssb.12011

Asymptotics of the Discrete Log-Concave Maximum Likelihood Estimator and Related Applications

2013· article· en· W2066134817 on OpenAlexaffabout
Fadoua Balabdaoui, Hanna Jankowski, Kaspar Rufibach, Marios Pavlides

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B (Statistical Methodology) · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistical Methods and Inference
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPointwiseMathematicsEstimatorLikelihood functionStatisticsConfidence intervalProbability mass functionMaximum likelihoodFunction (biology)Applied mathematicsProbability distributionMathematical analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Summary The assumption of log-concavity is a flexible and appealing non-parametric shape constraint in distribution modelling. In this work, we study the log-concave maximum likelihood estimator of a probability mass function. We show that the maximum likelihood estimator is strongly consistent and we derive its pointwise asymptotic theory under both the well-specified and misspecified settings. Our asymptotic results are used to calculate confidence intervals for the true log-concave probability mass function. Both the maximum likelihood estimator and the associated confidence intervals may be easily computed by using the R package logcondiscr. We illustrate our theoretical results by using recent data from the H1N1 pandemic in Ontario, Canada.

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)0.021
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.155
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 score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.109

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0210.155
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.005
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.342
Teacher spread0.292 · 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

Citations36
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B (Statistical Methodology)Same topicStatistical Methods and InferenceFrench-language works237,207