MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2128966253 · doi:10.5539/ijsp.v1n1p105

Scale Parameter Estimation of the Laplace Model Using Different Asymmetric Loss Functions

2012· article· en· W2128966253 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Sajid Ali, Muhammad Aslam, Nasir Abbas, Syed Mohsin Ali Kazmi

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Statistics and Probability · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistical Distribution Estimation and Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMathematicsPrior probabilityMean squared errorBayes estimatorBayes' theoremEstimatorStatisticsHyperparameterBayesian probabilityBayes factorApplied mathematicsFunction (biology)Algorithm

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the last few decades, there has been an emergent interest in the construction of flexible parametric classes of probability distributions in Bayesian as compared to Classical approach. In present study Bayesian Analysis of Laplace model using Inverted Gamma, Inverted Chi-Squared informative, Levy and Gumbel Type-II priors is discussed. The properties of posterior distribution, credible interval, highest posterior density region (HPDR) and Bayes Factor are discussed in current study. Bayes estimators are derived under squared error loss function (SELF), precautionary loss function, weighted squared error loss function and modified (quadratic) squared error loss function. Hyperparameters are determined through Empirical Bayes method. The estimates are also compared using the posterior risks (PRs) under the said loss functions. The priors and loss functions are compared using a real life data set.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.032

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
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 head0.070
GPT teacher head0.359
Teacher spread0.289 · 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

Citations22
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Statistics and ProbabilitySame topicStatistical Distribution Estimation and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207