MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2096410324 · doi:10.1002/cjs.10042

On minimum Hellinger distance estimation

2009· article· en· W2096410324 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Jingjing Wu, Rohana J. Karunamuni

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Statistics · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicAdvanced Statistical Methods and Models
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHellinger distanceEstimatorRobustness (evolution)Parametric statisticsMathematicsSemiparametric modelApplied mathematicsSample size determinationSemiparametric regressionMathematical optimizationStatisticsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Efficiency and robustness are two fundamental concepts in parametric estimation problems. It was long thought that there was an inherent contradiction between the aims of achieving robustness and efficiency; that is, a robust estimator could not be efficient and vice versa. It is now known that the minimum Hellinger distance approached introduced by Beran [R. Beran,Annals of Statistics1977;5:445–463] is one way of reconciling the conflicting concepts of efficiency and robustness. For parametric models, it has been shown that minimum Hellinger estimators achieve efficiency at the model density and simultaneously have excellent robustness properties. In this article, we examine the application of this approach in two semiparametric models. In particular, we consider a two‐component mixture model and a two‐sample semiparametric model. In each case, we investigate minimum Hellinger distance estimators of finite‐dimensional Euclidean parameters of particular interest and study their basic asymptotic properties. Small sample properties of the proposed estimators are examined using a Monte Carlo study. The results can be extended to semiparametric models of general form as well. The Canadian Journal of Statistics 37: 514–533; 2009 © 2009 Statistical Society of Canada

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)0.016
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.103
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 score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.085

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0160.103
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.004
Scholarly communication0.0020.006
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.073
GPT teacher head0.370
Teacher spread0.297 · 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

Citations32
Published2009
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of StatisticsSame topicAdvanced Statistical Methods and ModelsFrench-language works237,207