MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2077109741 · doi:10.1080/02331888.2015.1016028

Likelihood ratio order of the second spacing in multiple-outlier exponential models

2015· article· en· W2077109741 on OpenAlexaff
Peng Zhao, Jianfei Qiao, N. Balakrishnan

Bibliographic record

VenueStatistics · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistical Distribution Estimation and Applications
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
FundersPriority Academic Program Development of Jiangsu Higher Education InstitutionsNatural Science Foundation of Jiangsu ProvinceNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsMathematicsExponential functionOutlierStatisticsOrder statisticOrder (exchange)Hazard ratioRandom variableStochastic orderingExponential familyMaximum likelihoodCombinatoricsSample size determinationApplied mathematicsMathematical analysisConfidence interval

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, we study the ordering properties of the second sample spacing arising from multiple-outlier exponential models in terms of the likelihood ratio order. Let X1,…,Xn [Y1,…,Yn] be independent exponential random variables with X1,…,Xp [Y1,…,Yp] having common hazard rate λ1 [λ1∗] and Xp+1,…,Xn [Yp+1,…,Yn] having common hazard rate λ2 [λ2∗]. Let D2:n and D2:n∗ denote the corresponding second sample spacing, respectively. It is proved here that D2:n is stochastically greater than D2:n∗ in the sense of the likelihood ratio order, under two different kinds of parameter conditions. The results established here strengthen and generalize some of the results known in the literature. Two applications are also presented to illustrate the results.

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)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.085
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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.074

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.085
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.004
Scholarly communication0.0020.007
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.114
GPT teacher head0.339
Teacher spread0.225 · 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

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStatisticsSame topicStatistical Distribution Estimation and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207