MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2766833676 · doi:10.1080/01966324.2017.1383218

Tests for Scale Parameter of Skew Log Laplace Distribution

2017· article· en· W2766833676 on OpenAlexfundno aff
V. U. Dixit, Pradnya P. Khandeparkar

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Mathematical and Management Sciences · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistical Distribution Estimation and Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersRyerson University
KeywordsScale parameterLaplace transformMathematicsSkewWald testShape parameterLaplace distributionScale (ratio)Sequential probability ratio testLocation parameterEstimation theoryLaplace's methodMaximum likelihoodApplied mathematicsDistribution (mathematics)StatisticsLikelihood-ratio testProbability distributionMathematical analysisStatistical hypothesis testingComputer sciencePhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

SYNOPTIC ABSTRACTKozubowski and Podgorski (2003 Kozubowski, T. J., & Podgorski, K. (2003). Log-Laplace distributions. International Mathematical Journal, 3, 467–495. [Google Scholar]) have discussed properties, characterizations, and estimation of parameters of skew log Laplace distribution (SLLD). In this article, classical optimum tests for scale parameter of SLLD are derived. The most powerful (MP) test is obtained for scale parameter when shape parameters are known. Wald’s sequential probability ratio test (SPRT) is obtained, and its properties are studied. The likelihood ratio tests (LRT) for scale parameter are derived when the shape parameters are known and unknown. Finally, the SPRT and LRT are illustrated to the real life data.

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)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.096
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.061

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.096
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.079
GPT teacher head0.402
Teacher spread0.323 · 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

Citations3
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Mathematical and Management SciencesSame topicStatistical Distribution Estimation and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207