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
Abstract Copulas are powerful explanatory tools for studying dependence patterns in multivariate data. While the primary use of copula models is in multivariate dependence modelling, they also offer predictive value for regression analysis. This article investigates the utility of copula models for model‐based predictions from two angles. We assess whether, where, and by how much various copula models differ in their predictions of a conditional mean and conditional quantiles. From a model selection perspective, we then evaluate the predictive discrepancy between copula models using in‐sample and out‐of‐sample predictions both in bivariate and higher‐dimensional settings. Our findings suggest that some copula models are more difficult to distinguish in terms of their overall predictive power than others, and depending on the quantity of interest, the differences in predictions can be detected only in some targeted regions. The situations where copula‐based regression approaches would be advantageous over traditional ones are discussed using simulated and real data. The Canadian Journal of Statistics 47: 8–26; 2019 © 2018 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 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 | 0.003 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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