MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2734935854 · doi:10.1111/insr.12351

Shrinkage Estimation Strategies in Generalised Ridge Regression Models: Low/High‐Dimension Regime

2020· article· en· W2734935854 on OpenAlexaff
Bahadır Yüzbaşı, ‎M‎ohammad Arashi, S. Ejaz Ahmed

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Statistical Review · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistical Methods and Inference
Canadian institutionsBrock UniversityUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMulticollinearityEstimatorShrinkageDimension (graph theory)Regularization (linguistics)RegressionMathematicsRidgeShrinkage estimatorStatisticsRegression analysisEstimationLasso (programming language)Computer scienceEconometricsArtificial intelligenceEngineeringGeologyBias of an estimatorMinimum-variance unbiased estimator

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Summary In this study, we suggest pretest and shrinkage methods based on the generalised ridge regression estimation that is suitable for both multicollinear and high‐dimensional problems. We review and develop theoretical results for some of the shrinkage estimators. The relative performance of the shrinkage estimators to some penalty methods is compared and assessed by both simulation and real‐data analysis. We show that the suggested methods can be accounted as good competitors to regularisation techniques, by means of a mean squared error of estimation and prediction error. A thorough comparison of pretest and shrinkage estimators based on the maximum likelihood method to the penalty methods. In this paper, we extend the comparison outlined in his work using the least squares method for the generalised ridge regression.

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)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.027
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.069

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.027
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.139
GPT teacher head0.425
Teacher spread0.287 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations41
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Statistical ReviewSame topicStatistical Methods and InferenceFrench-language works237,207