MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2167008920

Comparison of Minimum Bias and Maximum Likelihood Methods for Claim Severity

2009· article· en· W2167008920 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Noriszura Ismail, Abdul Aziz Jemain

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistical Methods in Clinical Trials
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMathematicsMultiplicative functionStatisticsMaximum likelihoodFunction (biology)Convergence (economics)Likelihood functionApplied mathematicsAlgorithmEconometricsMathematical analysis
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The objective of this study is to compare the methods of minimum bias and maximum likelihood by using a weighted equation on claim severity data. The advantage of using the weighted equation is that the fitting procedure provides a faster convergence compared to the classical procedure introduced by Bailey and Simon [1] and Bailey [2]. Furthermore, the fitting procedure may be extended to other models in addition to the multiplicative and additive models, as long as the function of the fitted value is written in a specified linear form. In this study, the minimum bias and maximum likelihood methods will be compared and fitted on three types of claim severity data; the Malaysian data, the U.K. data from McCullagh and Nelder [3] and the Canadian data from Bailey and Simon [1].

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 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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.083
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
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 score0.788
Threshold uncertainty score0.925

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.083
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.657
GPT teacher head0.644
Teacher spread0.013 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations4
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicStatistical Methods in Clinical TrialsFrench-language works237,207