MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2955134940 · doi:10.3390/stats2030024

Confidence Sets for Statistical Classification

2019· article· en· W2955134940 on OpenAlexaff
Wei Liu, Frank Bretz, Natchalee Srimaneekarn, Jianan Peng, Anthony J. Hayter

Bibliographic record

VenueStats · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicAdvanced Statistical Methods and Models
Canadian institutionsAcadia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEstimatorClassifier (UML)Computer scienceArtificial intelligenceStatistical inferenceInferenceClassification ruleMachine learningPattern recognition (psychology)Data miningObject (grammar)MathematicsStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Classification has applications in a wide range of fields including medicine, engineering, computer science and social sciences among others. In statistical terms, classification is inference about the unknown parameters, i.e., the true classes of future objects. Hence, various standard statistical approaches can be used, such as point estimators, confidence sets and decision theoretic approaches. For example, a classifier that classifies a future object as belonging to only one of several known classes is a point estimator. The purpose of this paper is to propose a confidence-set-based classifier that classifies a future object into a single class only when there is enough evidence to warrant this, and into several classes otherwise. By allowing classification of an object into possibly more than one class, this classifier guarantees a pre-specified proportion of correct classification among all future objects. An example is provided to illustrate the method, and a simulation study is included to highlight the desirable feature of the method.

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)0.050
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.183
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: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.050
Threshold uncertainty score0.264

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0500.183
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.004
Bibliometrics0.0110.006
Science and technology studies0.0020.009
Scholarly communication0.0080.008
Open science0.0060.006
Research integrity0.0050.013
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.002

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 head0.273
GPT teacher head0.513
Teacher spread0.240 · 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
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

Citations3
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStatsSame topicAdvanced Statistical Methods and ModelsFrench-language works237,207