MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2950263474 · doi:10.1111/insr.12330

W.F. Sheppard's Smoothing Method: A Precursor to Local Polynomial Regression

2019· article· en· W2950263474 on OpenAlexaff
Lori L. Murray, David R. Bellhouse

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Statistical Review · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicCensus and Population Estimation
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSmoothingMilestonePolynomialPolynomial regressionMathematicsApplied mathematicsStatisticsPopulationRegressionMoment (physics)Simple (philosophy)EconometricsGeographyMathematical analysisCartographyDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Summary W.F. Sheppard has been much overlooked in the history of statistics although his work produced significant contributions. He developed a polynomial smoothing method and corrections of moment estimates for grouped data as well as extensive normal probability tables that have been widely used since the 20th century. Sheppard presented his smoothing method for actuaries in a series of publications during the early 20th century. Population data consist of irregularities, and some adjustment or smoothing of the data is often necessary. Simple techniques, such as Spencer's summation formulae involving arithmetic operations and moving averages, were commonly practised by actuaries to smooth out equally spaced data. Sheppard's method, however, is a polynomial smoothing method based on central differences. We will show how Sheppard's smoothing method was a significant milestone in the development of smoothing techniques and a precursor to local polynomial regression.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.031
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.041

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.031
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.005

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 head0.059
GPT teacher head0.448
Teacher spread0.389 · 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

Citations5
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Statistical ReviewSame topicCensus and Population EstimationFrench-language works237,207