Bibliographic record
Abstract
The linear-fractional model (LFM) is a fraction function whose numerator and denominator are linear in parameters. The LFM is a group of models nonlinear in parameters. The estimation methods for nonlinear models can be applied to the FLM. However, the parameters in an LFM can naturally be divided into two groups: those in the numerator and those in the denominator. When the parameters in the denominator are known, the standard least squares algorithm for the linear model can be used to estimate the parameters in the numerator. On the other hand, when parameters in the numerator are known, by a reciprocal transformation, the standard least squares algorithm for the linear model can again be used to estimate the parameters in the denominator. From this observation, we develop a recursive least-squares algorithm for estimation of parameters in the LFM when both groups has unknown parameters. The basic idea is to estimate the parameters in the numerators for a given initial parameters in the denominator using the standard least squares algorithm for the linear model, and then to estimate the parameters in the denominator with the previous estimates of parameters in the denominator using the standard least squares algorithm for the linear model when new data is available. The simulation results validated the convergence of the proposed algorithm and also showed the superior performance of the algorithm proposed over some existing algorithm.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".