Shrinkage and absolute penalty estimation in linear regression models
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In predicting a response variable using multiple linear regression model, several candidate models may be available which are subsets of the full model. Shrinkage estimators borrow information from the full model and provides a hybrid estimate of the regression parameters by shrinking the full model estimates toward the candidate submodel. The process introduces bias in the estimation but reduces the overall prediction error that offsets the bias. In this article, we give an overview of shrinkage estimators and their asymptotic properties. A real data example is given and a Monte Carlo simulation study is carried out to evaluate the performance of shrinkage estimators compared to the absolute penalty estimators such as least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO), adaptive LASSO and smoothly clipped absolute deviation (SCAD) based on prediction errors criterion in a multiple linear regression setup. WIREs Comput Stat 2012, 4:541–553. DOI: 10.1002/wics.1232 This article is categorized under: Statistical Learning and Exploratory Methods of the Data Sciences > Modeling Methods Statistical Models > Linear Models
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it