Notes on likelihood intervals and profiling
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In many applications, decisions are made on the basis of function of parameters g(θ). When the value of g(theta;) is calculated using estimated values for te parameters, its is important to have a measure of the uncertainty associated with that value of g(theta;). Likelihood ratio approaches to finding likelihood intervals for functions of parameters have been shown to be more reliable, in terms of coverage probability, than the linearization approach. Two approaches to the generalization of the profiling algorithm have been proposed in the literature to enable construction of likelihood intervals for a function of parameters (Chen and Jennrich, 1996; Bates and Watts, 1988). In this paper we show the equivalence of these two methods. We also provide and analysis of cases in which neither profiling algorithm is appropriate. For one of these cases an alternate approach is suggested Whereas generalized profiling is based on maximizing the likelihood function given a constraint on the value of g(θ), the alternative algorithm is based on optimizing g(θ) given a constraint on the value of the likelihood function.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.038 | 0.284 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".