MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2124694383 · doi:10.1002/sim.2329

Interval estimation of the mean response in a log‐regression model

2005· article· en· W2124694383 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueStatistics in Medicine · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicOptimal Experimental Design Methods
Canadian institutionsYork University
FundersNational Cancer InstituteAmerican Lebanese Syrian Associated Charities
KeywordsStatisticsRegression analysisMathematicsSample size determinationPrediction intervalConfidence intervalInterval estimationInterval (graph theory)RegressionInferenceEconometricsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A standard approach to the analysis of skewed response data with concomitant information is to use a log-transformation to normalize the distribution of the response variable and then conduct a log- regression analysis. However, the mean response at original scale is often of interest. El-Shaarawi and Viveros developed an interval estimation of the mean response of a log-regression model based on large sample theory. There is however very little information available in the literature on constructing such estimates when the sample size is small. In this paper, we develop a small-sample corrected interval by using the likelihood-based inference method developed by Barndorff-Nielson and Fraser et al. Simulation results show that the proposed interval provides almost exact coverage probability, even for small samples.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.018
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.467
Threshold uncertainty score0.991

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.155
GPT teacher head0.515
Teacher spread0.361 · 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