Bibliographic record
Abstract
Nous étudions le problème de l'estimation de moyenne et de la densité prédictive d'une population sélectionnée, en obtenant de nouveaux développements qui incluent l'analyse de biais, la décomposition du risque et les problèmes avec restrictions sur les paramètres (chapitre 2). Nous proposons des estimateurs de densité prédictive efficaces en termes de pertes Kullback-Leibler et Hellinger (chapitre 3) améliorant les procédures de plug-in via une perte duale et via une d'expansion de variance. Enfin, nous présentons les résultats de l'amélioration de l'estimateur du maximum de vraisemblance (EMV) d'une moyenne normale bornée pour une classe de fonctions de perte, y compris la perte normale réfléchie, avec des implications pour l'estimation de densité prédictive. A savoir, nous donnons des conditions sur la perte et la largeur de l'espace paramétrique pour lesquels l'estimateur de Bayes par rapport à la loi a priori uniforme sur la frontière domine la EMV.
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 | 0.023 | 0.124 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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.
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".