MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2514259613 · doi:10.1002/cjs.11302

Probability‐scale residuals for continuous, discrete, and censored data

2016· article· en· W2514259613 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Bryan E. Shepherd, Chun Li, Qi Liu

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Statistics · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistical Methods and Bayesian Inference
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute of Allergy and Infectious DiseasesNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsResidualStatisticsQuantileMathematicsScale (ratio)Ordinal regressionEconometricsProbability distributionProportional hazards modelRegression analysisOutcome (game theory)Quantile regressionCumulative distribution functionRegressionOrdinal dataProbability density functionAlgorithmGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract We describe a new residual for general regression models defined as , whereyis the observed outcome and is a random variable from the fitted distribution. This probability‐scale residual (PSR) can be written as , whereas the popular observed‐minus‐expected residual can be thought of as . Therefore the PSR is useful in settings where differences are not meaningful or where the expectation of the fitted distribution cannot be calculated. We present several desirable properties of the PSR that make it useful for diagnostics and measuring residual correlation, especially across different outcome types. We demonstrate its utility for continuous, ordered discrete, and censored outcomes, including current status data, and with various models including Cox regression, quantile regression, and ordinal cumulative probability models, for which fully specified distributions are not desirable or needed, and in some cases suitable residuals are not available. The residual is illustrated with simulated data and real data sets from HIV‐infected patients on therapy in the southeastern United States and Latin America.The Canadian Journal of Statistics44: 463–479; 2016 © 2016 Statistical Society of Canada

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Methods
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Simulation or modelinghigh
grokno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Methods
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Simulation or modelinghigh
opusno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Methods
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Simulation or modelinghigh
models agreeAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

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)0.025
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.116
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: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.000

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0250.116
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.117
GPT teacher head0.344
Teacher spread0.228 · 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

Labeled directly by 3 models reading the full record.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations29
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of StatisticsSame topicStatistical Methods and Bayesian InferenceFrench-language works237,207