On Comparison of Local Polynomial Regression Estimators for P=0 and P=1 in a Model Based Framework
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article discusses the local polynomial regression estimator for and the local polynomial regression estimator for in a finite population. The performance criterion exploited in this study focuses on the efficiency of the finite population total estimators. Further, the discussion explores analytical comparisons between the two estimators with respect to asymptotic relative efficiency. In particular, asymptotic properties of the local polynomial regression estimator of finite population total for are derived in a model based framework. The results of the local polynomial regression estimator for are compared with those of the local polynomial regression estimator for studied by Kikechi et al (2018). Variance comparisons are made using the local polynomial regression estimator for and the local polynomial regression estimator for which indicate that the estimators are asymptotically equivalently efficient. Simulation experiments carried out show that the local polynomial regression estimator outperforms the local polynomial regression estimator in the linear, quadratic and bump populations.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it