MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2073356306 · doi:10.1081/sta-200060717

Point and Interval Estimation for Bivariate Normal Distribution Based on Progressively Type-II Censored Data

2005· article· en· W2073356306 on OpenAlexaff
N. Balakrishnan, J.-A. Kim

Bibliographic record

VenueCommunication in Statistics- Theory and Methods · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistical Distribution Estimation and Applications
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMathematicsStatisticsConfidence intervalCoverage probabilityBivariate analysisFisher informationMonte Carlo methodPoint estimationInterval estimationMultivariate normal distributionAsymptotic distributionMultivariate statisticsEstimator

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The maximum likelihood estimates (MLEs) of parameters of a bivariate normal distribution are derived based on progressively Type-II censored data. The asymptotic variances and covariances of the MLEs are derived from the Fisher information matrix. Using the asymptotic normality of MLEs and the asymptotic variances and covariances derived from the Fisher information matrix, interval estimation of the parameters is discussed and the probability coverages of the 90% and 95% confidence intervals for all the parameters are then evaluated by means of Monte Carlo simulations. To improve the probability coverages of the confidence intervals, especially for the correlation coefficient, sample-based Monte Carlo percentage points are determined and the probability coverages of the 90% and 95% confidence intervals obtained using these percentage points are evaluated and shown to be quite satisfactory. Finally, an illustrative example is presented.

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)0.015
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.097
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 score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.081

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.097
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.120
GPT teacher head0.493
Teacher spread0.373 · 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

Citations21
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCommunication in Statistics- Theory and MethodsSame topicStatistical Distribution Estimation and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207