A Classroom Approach to Illustrate Transformation and Bootstrap Confidence Interval Techniques Using the Poisson Distribution
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Poisson distribution is here used to illustrate transformation and bootstrap techniques in order to construct a confidence interval for a mean. A comparison is made between the derived intervals and the Wald and score confidence intervals. The discussion takes place in a classroom, where the teacher and the students have previously discussed and evaluated the Wald and score confidence intervals. While step by step interactively getting acquainted with new techniques, the students will learn about the effects of e.g. bias and asymmetry and ways of dealing with such phenomena. The primary purpose of this teacher-student communication is therefore not to find the best possible interval estimator for this particular case, but rather to provide a study displaying a teacher and her/his students interacting with each other in an efficient and rewarding way. The teacher has a strategy of encouraging the students to take initiatives. This is accomplished by providing the necessary background of the problem and some underlying theory after which the students are confronted with questions and problem solving. From this the learning process starts. The teacher has to be flexible according to how the students react. The students are supposed to have studied mathematical statistics for at least two semesters.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.030 | 0.009 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".