MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2067136442 · doi:10.1080/00949650310001643252

Exact inference and prediction for<i>K</i>-sample two-parameter exponential case under general Type-II censoring

2004· article· en· W2067136442 on OpenAlexaff
N. Balakrishnan, Chien‐Tai Lin, Ping Shing Chan

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Statistical Computation and Simulation · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistical Distribution Estimation and Applications
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMathematicsInferenceCensoring (clinical trials)EstimatorStatisticsExponential functionOrder statisticApplied mathematicsExponential distributionScale parameterBest linear unbiased predictionComputer scienceMathematical analysisArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Exact inference for the location and scale parameters as well as prediction intervals for K-sample exponential case under general Type-II censored samples are derived using an algorithm of Huffer and Lin [Huffer, F. W. and Lin, C. T. (2001). Computing the joint distribution of general linear combinations of spacings or exponential variates. Stat. Sin., 11, 1141–1157.]. This approach provides a simple way to determine the exact percentage points of the pivotal quantities based on the best linear unbiased estimators in order to develop exact inference for the location and scale parameters as well as to construct exact prediction intervals for failure times unobserved in the ith sample. Similarly, exact prediction intervals for failure times of units from a future sample can also be easily obtained. A comparison is then made with the approximate inference based on the maximum likelihood estimators. Finally, we present an example to illustrate all the methods of inference developed in this paper.

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)0.019
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.093
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.101

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0190.093
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.005
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.099
GPT teacher head0.419
Teacher spread0.321 · 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

Citations10
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Statistical Computation and SimulationSame topicStatistical Distribution Estimation and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207