MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2540718312 · doi:10.1002/cjs.11331

Switching nonparametric regression models for multi‐curve data

2017· preprint· en· W2540718312 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Camila P. E. de Souza, Nancy Heckman, Helena Xu

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Statistics · 2017
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicBayesian Methods and Mixture Models
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaBC Cancer Agency
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFrequentist inferenceCovariateNonparametric statisticsCurve fittingNonparametric regressionFunction (biology)MathematicsData setIndependent and identically distributed random variablesComputer scienceEconometricsStatisticsBayesian probabilityBayesian inference

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract We develop and apply an approach for analyzing multi‐curve data where each curve is driven by a latent state process. The state at any particular point determines a smooth function, forcing the individual curve to “switch” from one function to another. Thus each curve follows what we call a switching nonparametric regression model. We develop an EM algorithm to estimate the model parameters. We also obtain standard errors for the parameter estimates of the state process. We consider three types of hidden states: those that are independent and identically distributed, those that follow a Markov structure, and those that are independent but with distribution depending on some covariate(s). A simulation study shows the frequentist properties of our estimates. We apply our methods to a building's power usage data.The Canadian Journal of Statistics45: 442–460; 2017 © 2017 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

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)0.017
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.056
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.091

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0170.056
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.003
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.004
Open science0.0040.003
Research integrity0.0030.004
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 head0.228
GPT teacher head0.369
Teacher spread0.141 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of StatisticsSame topicBayesian Methods and Mixture ModelsFrench-language works237,207