MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2159529181 · doi:10.5539/ibr.v5n10p212

Interval Estimate of the Threshold and the Poverty Rate by the Methods of the Simulation

2012· article· en· W2159529181 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Boudjelal Boukaabar, Mohamed Kheireddine Dellil

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Business Research · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicEconomic theories and models
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEstimatorSample (material)Confidence intervalPoint estimationPopulationEconometricsPoint (geometry)StatisticsSample size determinationMathematicsComputer scienceDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

So far, the work and research on the evaluation of the threshold and the poverty rate were satisfied with obtaining a point estimator of these parameters. This assessment is obtained always from a sample of the population whose parameters are under study. In Statistics, such an approach raises the issue of confidence which may be linked to estimators from a sample and used in place of the unknown population parameters. Statisticians rightly consider that no confidence can be given to the point estimators and propose instead using interval estimates. A problem arises if one was to calculate confidence intervals for the parameters that are the poverty threshold and rate: the data. We need a fairly large number of samples from which we calculate the estimators for both parameters. It is only then that we can make a thorough statistical study to estimate confidence intervals for each of the two unknown parameters. Although theoretically this approach does not suffer from any criticism by statisticians, it could prove costly since it requires taking several samples. Moreover, it could be simply unenforceable because requiring probing a large number of individuals to uncover their financial situation. In some societies, it is seen to be awkward to reveal one’s income. Such mentality is current in the Algerian society. This paper proposes a new methodology that solves the problem of the data requirement. This methodology uses the theory of simulation and has the advantage of requiring taking only a single sample. From this base sample we derive the laws of probability needed for the generation of several samples by a computer simulation. Each resulting sample will be used to compute the poverty threshold and the poverty rate attached to it. The collection of these estimators will be used for statistical analysis to evaluate a confidence interval for the threshold and the poverty rate of the original population from which the sample was taken.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.046
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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.035

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.046
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.119
GPT teacher head0.398
Teacher spread0.280 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Business Research→Same topicEconomic theories and models→French-language works237,207→