MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2167199711 · doi:10.19026/rjaset.5.4964

Empirical Bayes Estimation for Exponential Model Using Non-parameter Polynomial Density Estimator

2013· article· en· W2167199711 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

VenueResearch Journal of Applied Sciences Engineering and Technology · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistical Distribution Estimation and Applications
Canadian institutionsInnovation Cluster (Canada)
FundersNatural Science Foundation of Jiangxi Province
KeywordsEstimatorMean squared errorMathematicsBayes' theoremStatisticsBayes estimatorProbability density functionApplied mathematicsExponential functionEstimation theoryExponential distributionEfficient estimatorBayes error rateMinimum-variance unbiased estimatorBayesian probabilityBayes classifierMathematical analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this study, we study the empirical Bayes estimation of the parameter of the exponential distribution. In the empirical Bayes procedure, we employ the non-parameter polynomial density estimator to the estimation of the unknown marginal probability density function, instead of estimating the unknown prior probability density function of the parameter. Empirical Bayes estimators are derived for the parameter of the exponential distribution under squared error and LINEX loss functions. We use numerical examples to compare the empirical Bayes estimators we obtained under squared error and LINEX loss functions and we get the result of the mean square error of the empirical Bayes estimator under LINEX loss is usually smaller than the estimator under squared error loss function, so it is more better.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.743
Threshold uncertainty score0.290

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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 head0.137
GPT teacher head0.430
Teacher spread0.293 · 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