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 OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

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.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.105
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.098
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.105
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.268
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