MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2781287866 · doi:10.1002/cjs.11348

Empirical likelihood inference for multiple censored samples

2017· article· en· W2781287866 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Statistics · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistical Methods and Inference
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaCarleton University
FundersFPInnovations
KeywordsQuantileEstimatorCensoring (clinical trials)OutlierInferenceMathematicsEmpirical likelihoodStatisticsEconometricsNonparametric statisticsQuantile functionStatistical inferenceAsymptotic distributionProbability density functionComputer scienceCumulative distribution functionArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract We present a semiparametric approach to inference on the underlying distributions of multiple right‐ and/or left‐censored samples with fixed censoring points and focus on effective estimation of population quantiles and distribution functions. We pool information across multiple censored samples through a semiparametric density ratio model and propose an empirical likelihood approach to inference. This approach achieves high efficiency without making restrictive model assumptions. The resultant estimator is asymptotically normal, and the resulting distribution function estimator and quantile estimator are more efficient than estimators obtained from the classic nonparametric methods, such as the empirical distribution and sample quantile. In addition, the proposed approach permits consistent estimation of distribution functions and quantiles on a larger domain than would otherwise be possible using the classic methods. Simulation studies suggest that the proposed method is robust against misspecification of the density ratio function and against outliers. Our approach is further illustrated with an application to the analysis of real lumber strength data. The Canadian Journal of Statistics 46: 212–232; 2018 © 2017 Statistical Society of Canada

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.063
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
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 score0.339
Threshold uncertainty score0.945

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.063
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.229
GPT teacher head0.412
Teacher spread0.183 · 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