MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2132011131

Improved Nonparametric Inference for the Mean of a Bounded Random Variable with Application to Poverty Measures

2005· article· en· W2132011131 on OpenAlexaff
Mame Astou Diouf, Jean Marie Dufour

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIncome, Poverty, and Inequality
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMathematicsBounded functionNonparametric statisticsRandom variableInferenceStatisticsApplied mathematicsEconometricsComputer scienceArtificial intelligence
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We provide new finite sample nonparametric inference methods for the mean of a bounded random variable. For this purpose, we prove that the impossibility theorem of Bahadur and Savage (1956) does not apply in this case. Next, we observe that confidence intervals for the mean of a bounded random variable can actually be derived by projection from confidence intervals for the adequate distribution function and investigate finite sample nonparametric methods based on improved Kolmogorov Smirnov statistics and likelihood ratio improvement. Further, we apply all studied inference methods on the Foster, Greer and Thorbecke (FGT, 1984) poverty measures. We show that FGT poverty measures are actually expectations of some bounded random variables, namely a mixing between a continuous bounded random variable and a mass at the poverty line. So, all inference methods for the mean of bounded random variable apply to this case. We study the relative performance of such methods. Monte Carlo simulations demonstrate the necessity of using finite sample nonparametric approaches. The asymptotic and bootstrap inference methods appear not reliable in finite sample. On the contrary, the finite sample nonparametric inference methods we propose are robust to the framework and the sample size we use. Confidence intervals we get have a very good coverage probability (always close to 100%) and a good precision. In addition, we provide explicit expressions which make them very easy to compute.

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 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.976
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
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 science0.0000.000
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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.310
Teacher spread0.283 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations5
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicIncome, Poverty, and InequalityFrench-language works237,207