MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2792004093 · doi:10.1111/anzs.12212

A survey of high dimension low sample size asymptotics

2018· article· en· W2792004093 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.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueAustralian & New Zealand Journal of Statistics · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistical Methods and Inference
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Human Genome Research InstituteJapan Society for the Promotion of ScienceNational Heart, Lung, and Blood InstituteCystic Fibrosis CanadaGenome CanadaNational Science Foundation
KeywordsMathematicsDimension (graph theory)SmoothingSample size determinationSample (material)Mathematical statisticsSurvey samplingStatisticsLarge sampleEconometricsCalculus (dental)Mathematical economicsStatistical physicsPure mathematicsSociologyDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Peter Hall's work illuminated many aspects of statistical thought, some of which are very well known including the bootstrap and smoothing. However, he also explored many other lesser known aspects of mathematical statistics. This is a survey of one of those areas, initiated by a seminal paper in 2005, on high dimension low sample size asymptotics. An interesting characteristic of that first paper, and of many of the following papers, is that they contain deep and insightful concepts which are frequently surprising and counter-intuitive, yet have mathematical underpinnings which tend to be direct and not difficult to prove.

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)0.019
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
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 score0.737
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.019
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.097
GPT teacher head0.363
Teacher spread0.266 · 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