MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Composite Likelihood/Pseudolikelihood

2017· other· en· W2588227159 on OpenAlexaff
Grace Y. Yi

Bibliographic record

VenueWiley StatsRef: Statistics Reference Online · 2017
Typeother
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicHydrology and Drought Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsQuasi-maximum likelihoodMaximum likelihoodComputer scienceVariety (cybernetics)Composite numberLikelihood functionArtificial intelligenceStatisticsMachine learningEconometricsMathematicsAlgorithm

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract There has been growing research interest in composite likelihood or pseudolikelihood. A great variety of applications of the composite likelihood/pseudolikelihood method have emerged rapidly since the 1998 seminal paper by Lindsay. Applications include, but are not limited to, image data, geostatistics, spatial extremes and space‐time models, survival data, clustered and longitudinal data, time series, genetic data, and survey data. In this article, we provide an overview of the composite likelihood/pseudolikelihood method and discuss some related issues.

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)0.106
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 score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.091

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0170.106
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.004
Scholarly communication0.0060.005
Open science0.0040.005
Research integrity0.0030.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0190.005

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.268 · 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

Citations5
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWiley StatsRef: Statistics Reference OnlineSame topicHydrology and Drought AnalysisFrench-language works237,207