MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2070856327 · doi:10.1239/jap/1091543427

On applications of residual lifetimes of compound geometric convolutions

2004· article· en· W2070856327 on OpenAlexaff
Gordon E. Willmot, Jun Cai

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Applied Probability · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicProbability and Risk Models
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMathematicsConvolution (computer science)Geometric distributionResidualDistribution (mathematics)Geometric progressionConvolution powerCombinatoricsDiscrete mathematicsApplied mathematicsProbability distributionMathematical analysisAlgorithmStatisticsComputer scienceArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We demonstrate that the residual lifetime distribution of a compound geometric distribution convoluted with another distribution, termed a compound geometric convolution, is again a compound geometric convolution. Conditions under which the compound geometric convolution is new worse than used (NWU) or new better than used (NBU) are then derived. The results are applied to ruin probabilities in the stationary renewal risk model where the convolution components are of particular interest, as well as to the equilibrium virtual waiting time distribution in the G/G/1 queue, an approximation to the equilibrium M/G/c waiting time distribution, ruin in the classical risk model perturbed by diffusion, and second-order reliability classifications.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.027
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.029

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.027
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.077
GPT teacher head0.347
Teacher spread0.269 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations14
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Applied ProbabilitySame topicProbability and Risk ModelsFrench-language works237,207