MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2159528252 · doi:10.1111/1467-9868.00277

On Measuring Sensitivity to Parametric Model Misspecification

2001· article· en· W2159528252 on OpenAlexaff
Paul Gustafson

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B (Statistical Methodology) · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistical Methods and Inference
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsParametric statisticsSensitivity (control systems)InferenceParametric modelMeasure (data warehouse)EconometricsMathematicsSample (material)Distribution (mathematics)StatisticsSample size determinationComputer sciencePhysicsArtificial intelligenceData mining

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Summary In settings where parametric inference is inconsistent under model misspecification, the discrepancy between correct and misspecified inferences is compared with the discrepancy between correct and misspecified models. To make the comparison tractable, large sample and small misspecification approximations are employed. The ratio of the approximate discrepancy between inferences to the approximate discrepancy between models is regarded as a relative measure of sensitivity to model misspecification. The maximum ratio over a family of correct distributions is determined as a measure of worst case sensitivity. As well, the distribution producing this maximum can be examined, to see how a particular combination of a parametric family and estimand is susceptible to model misspecifications.

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)0.144
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.621
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 score0.144
Threshold uncertainty score0.763

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1440.621
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0050.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.008
Scholarly communication0.0040.007
Open science0.0030.007
Research integrity0.0030.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.268
GPT teacher head0.400
Teacher spread0.132 · 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

Citations17
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B (Statistical Methodology)Same topicStatistical Methods and InferenceFrench-language works237,207