MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2567199705

Adjustments to the signed likelihood root and analysis of an embedded experiment in a survey

2016· dissertation· en· W2567199705 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Wei Lin

Bibliographic record

VenueTSpace · 2016
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistical Methods and Bayesian Inference
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRoot (linguistics)StatisticsEconometricsMathematicsPsychologyComputer scienceLinguisticsPhilosophy
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This thesis consists of two projects. The first project is to develop an adjustment to the signed likelihood root (r) so that the normal approximation to the distribution of the adjusted r is improved. By using Taylor series expansions, we have developed an additive adjustment to r, which leads to a second-order approximation to its distribution. The theory is developed, simulations are recorded to indicate repetition accuracy, real data is analyzed, and connections to alternatives are discussed. The second project is dedicated to the analysis of an embedded experiment in a survey. We derive the Horvitz-Thompson estimator of the average treatment effect and its variance for a general design. Five estimators of corresponding variance are proposed and examined under a design combination of simple random sampling without replacement and completely randomized design. In the presence of auxiliary information, a new model-assisted estimator for the average treatment effect is developed and the variance of the estimator is derived. We show that the new estimator is approximately design-unbiased when a general model is employed to incorporate the auxiliary information. Moreover, it doesn't require auxiliary variable information at the population level and is relatively easy to implement and compute. Simulations carried out indicate that the new estimator gains in efficiency and its relative bias is negligible. Reliable variance estimators based on simulation experiments are suggested. The method proposed is applied to a synthetic data provided by Statistics Canada with multiple treatments under a design combination of stratified random sampling and randomized block design.

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)0.028
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.146
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 score0.028
Threshold uncertainty score0.149

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0280.146
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
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 head0.058
GPT teacher head0.449
Teacher spread0.390 · 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
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTSpaceSame topicStatistical Methods and Bayesian InferenceFrench-language works237,207