MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2892004684 · doi:10.5539/ijsp.v7n6p33

Heteroscedasticity and Model Selection via Partitioning in Fisheries Data

2018· article· en· W2892004684 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Morteza Marzjarani

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Statistics and Probability · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistical Methods and Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHeteroscedasticityOrdinary least squaresGeneralized least squaresSelection (genetic algorithm)Model selectionStatisticsMathematicsSet (abstract data type)Data setLeast-squares function approximationEconometricsComputer scienceData miningMathematical optimizationArtificial intelligenceEstimator

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Selecting a proper model for a data set is a challenging task. In this article, an attempt was made to answer and to find a suitable model for a given data set. A general linear model (GLM) was introduced along with three different methods for estimating the parameters of the model. The three estimation methods considered in this paper were ordinary least squares (OLS), generalized least squares (GLS), and feasible generalized least squares (FGLS). In the case of GLS, two different weights were selected for improving the severity of heteroscedasticity and the proper weight (s) was deployed. The third weight was selected through the application of FGLS. Analyses showed that only two of the three weights including the FGLS were effective in improving or reducing the severity of heteroscedasticity. In addition, each data set was divided into Training, Validation, and Testing producing a more reliable set of estimates for the parameters in the model. Partitioning data is a relatively new approach is statistics borrowed from the field of machine learning. Stepwise and forward selection methods along with a number of statistics including the average square error testing (ASE), Adj. R-Sq, AIC, AICC, and ASE validate along with proper hierarchies were deployed to select a more appropriate model(s) for a given data set. Furthermore, the response variable in both data files was transformed using the Box-Cox method to meet the assumption of normality. Analysis showed that the logarithmic transformation solved this issue in a satisfactory manner. Since the issues of heteroscedasticity, model selection, and partitioning of data have not been addressed in fisheries, for introduction and demonstration purposes only, the 2015 and 2016 shrimp data in the Gulf of Mexico (GOM) were selected and the above methods were applied to these data sets. At the conclusion, some variations of the GLM were identified as possible leading candidates for the above data sets.

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)0.033
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.072
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.033
Threshold uncertainty score0.172

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0330.072
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.003
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
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 head0.160
GPT teacher head0.414
Teacher spread0.254 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations4
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Statistics and ProbabilitySame topicStatistical Methods and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207