Best linear unbiased estimators of parameters of a simple linear regression model based on ordered ranked set samples
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As an alternative to an estimation based on a simple random sample (BLUE-SRS) for the simple linear regression model, Moussa-Hamouda and Leone [E. Moussa-Hamouda and F.C. Leone, The o-blue estimators for complete and censored samples in linear regression, Technometrics, 16 (3) (1974), pp. 441–446.] discussed the best linear unbiased estimators based on order statistics (BLUE-OS), and showed that BLUE-OS is more efficient than BLUE-SRS for normal data. Using the ranked set sampling, Barreto and Barnett [M.C.M. Barreto and V. Barnett, Best linear unbiased estimators for the simple linear regression model using ranked set sampling. Environ. Ecoll. Stat. 6 (1999), pp. 119–133.] derived the best linear unbiased estimators (BLUE-RSS) for simple linear regression model and showed that BLUE-RSS is more efficient for the estimation of the regression parameters (intercept and slope) than BLUE-SRS for normal data, but not so for the estimation of the residual standard deviation in the case of small sample size. As an alternative to RSS, this paper considers the best linear unbiased estimators based on order statistics from a ranked set sample (BLUE-ORSS) and shows that BLUE-ORSS is uniformly more efficient than BLUE-RSS and BLUE-OS for normal data.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.022 | 0.068 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".