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 OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.745
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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