Assessment of an L-Kurtosis-Based Criterionfor Quantile Estimation
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The estimation of extreme quantiles corresponding to small probabilities of exceedance is commonly required in the risk analysis of flood protection structures. The usefulness of L-moments has been well recognized in the statistical analysis of data, because they can be estimated with less uncertainty than that associated with traditional moment estimates. The objective of the paper is to assess the effectiveness of L-kurtosis in the method of L-moments for distribution fitting and quantile estimation from small samples. For this purpose, the performance of the proposed L-kurtosis-based criterion is compared against a set of benchmark measures of goodness of fit, namely, divergence, integrated-square error, chi square, and probability-plot correlation. The divergence is a comprehensive measure of probabilistic distance used in the modern information theory for signal analysis and pattern recognition. Simulation results indicate that the L-kurtosis criterion can provide quantile estimates that are in good agreement with benchmark estimates obtained from other robust criteria. The remarkable simplicity of the computation makes the L-kurtosis criterion an attractive tool for distribution selection.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it