MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2799669366 · doi:10.1002/sta4.182

Composite likelihood model comparison test under fixed and local alternatives

2018· article· en· W2799669366 on OpenAlexaff
Yawen Xu, Xin Gao, Xiaogang Wang, Augustine Wong

Bibliographic record

VenueStat · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistical Distribution Estimation and Applications
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStatisticsStatisticMathematicsQuasi-maximum likelihoodTest statisticVariance (accounting)Likelihood-ratio testTerm (time)EconometricsMaximum likelihoodStatistical hypothesis testingLikelihood functionEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper proposes composite likelihood based tests to perform model comparisons. The models are compared based on their expected composite Kullback–Leibler distances to the true underlying model. The asymptotic distributions of the test statistics are derived under both fixed alternatives and local alternatives. With an additional variance estimation term, the test statistic has a better error rate control for local alternatives. Copyright © 2018 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

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)0.037
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.168
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: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.037
Threshold uncertainty score0.195

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0370.168
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.003
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.004
Scholarly communication0.0040.006
Open science0.0040.006
Research integrity0.0030.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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 head0.082
GPT teacher head0.401
Teacher spread0.319 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStatSame topicStatistical Distribution Estimation and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207