Bibliographic record
Abstract
There are three common types of regression models: parametric, semiparametric and nonparametric regression. The model should be used to fit the real data depends on how much information is available about the form of the relationship between the response variable and explanatory variables, and the random error distribution that is assumed. Researchers need to be familiar with each modeling approach requirements. In this paper, differences between these models, common estimation methods, robust estimation, and applications are introduced. For parametric models, there are many known methods of estimation, such as least squares and maximum likelihood methods which are extensively studied but they require strong assumptions. On the other hand, nonparametric regression models are free of assumptions regarding the form of the response-explanatory variables relationships but estimation methods, such as kernel and spline smoothing are computationally expensive and smoothing parameters need to be obtained. For kernel smoothing there two common estimators: local constant and local linear smoothing methods. In terms of bias, especially at the boundaries of the data range, local linear is better than local constant estimator. Robust estimation methods for linear models are well studied, however the robust estimation methods in nonparametric regression methods are limited. A robust estimation method for the semiparametric and nonparametric regression models is introduced.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.005 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".