MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2962877661 · doi:10.1002/cjs.11313

Post‐selection inference for ‐penalized likelihood models

2017· article· en· W2962877661 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Jonathan Taylor, Robert Tibshirani

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Statistics · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistical Methods and Inference
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute of Biomedical Imaging and BioengineeringNational Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute
KeywordsLasso (programming language)InferenceModel selectionSelection (genetic algorithm)Logistic regressionStatistical inferenceStatisticsEconometricsComputer scienceMathematicsArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract We present a new method for post‐selection inference for (lasso)'penalized likelihood models, including generalized regression models. Our approach generalizes the post‐selection framework presented in Lee et al. (2013). The method provides P ‐values and confidence intervals that are asymptotically valid, conditional on the inherent selection done by the lasso. We present applications of this work to (regularized) logistic regression, Cox's proportional hazards model, and the graphical lasso. We do not provide rigorous proofs here of the claimed results, but rather conceptual and theoretical sketches. The Canadian Journal of Statistics 46: 41–61; 2018 © 2017 Statistical Society of Canada

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)0.023
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.091
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 score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.122

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0230.091
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0030.004
Research integrity0.0020.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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 head0.132
GPT teacher head0.375
Teacher spread0.243 · 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

Citations168
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of StatisticsSame topicStatistical Methods and InferenceFrench-language works237,207