Bibliographic record
Abstract
When performing local polynomial regression (LPR) with kernel smoothing, the choice of the smoothing parameter, or bandwidth, is critical. The performance of the method is often evaluated using the Mean Square Error (MSE). Bias and variance are two components of MSE. Kernel methods are known to exhibit varying degrees of bias. Boundary effects and data sparsity issues are two potential problems to watch for. There is a need for a tool to visually assess the potential bias when applying kernel smooths to a given scatterplot of data. In this dissertation, we propose pointwise confidence intervals for bias and demonstrate a software tool to implement the confidence bands in practice. The effectiveness of the proposed bias assessment tool is demonstrated using simulated data and is illustrated by its application to classical data sets. To reduce the bias of LPR while keeping other good properties of it, as well as to mitigate the sparsity and boundary issues, this thesis extends the technique of double-smoothing from the local linear regression context to higher order local polynomial regression, with particular focus on local quadratic and local cubic regression. Double-smoothing is a technique that involves two levels of smoothing and is known to reduce bias in nonparametric regression while maintaining control over variance. What was not known is that the method is often sub-optimal when the bandwidths at both levels of smoothing are equal. In this thesis, we propose a simple method for obtaining the second-level smoothing bandwidth while using a cross-validation method for the first level. The proposed tools in this dissertation are employed to address real problems related to wildfire management: one is for modelling the time to initial attack using fire case records for the years from 1930 to 2012 in a Northeastern Ontario area. Another one is for the experimental results of burning debris as a randomized component in a firebrand spotting simulator
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".