MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2144201579 · doi:10.7202/1036917ar

Log-Transform Kernel Density Estimation of Income Distribution

2016· article· en· W2144201579 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
Arthur Charpentier, Emmanuel Flachaire

Bibliographic record

VenueL Actualité économique · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistical Methods and Inference
Canadian institutionsHEC MontréalGroup for Research in Decision AnalysisUniversité du Québec à Montréal
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaInstitut Universitaire de FranceAgence Nationale de la Recherche
KeywordsKernel density estimationMultivariate kernel density estimationDensity estimationVariable kernel density estimationKernel (algebra)Transformation (genetics)MathematicsEstimationDistribution (mathematics)LogarithmKernel methodStatisticsApplied mathematicsComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceMathematical analysisEconomicsSupport vector machineDiscrete mathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Standard kernel density estimation methods are very often used in practice to estimate density functions. It works well in numerous cases. However, it is known not to work so well with skewed, multimodal and heavy-tailed distributions. Such features are usual with income distributions, defined over the positive support. In this paper, we show that a preliminary logarithmic transformation of the data, combined with standard kernel density estimation methods, can provide a much better fit of the density estimation.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.027
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.027
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.003

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 head0.072
GPT teacher head0.333
Teacher spread0.261 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations29
Published2016
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueL Actualité économiqueSame topicStatistical Methods and InferenceFrench-language works237,207