MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2964164380

Inference from Small and Big Data Sets with Error Rates

2016· article· en· W2964164380 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicProbability and Risk Models
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMathematicsInferenceStatisticsRandomized responseBig dataRandomized experimentSmall dataData setAlgorithmData miningArtificial intelligenceComputer scienceEstimator
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper we introduce randomized $t$-type statistics that will be referred to as randomized pivots. We show that these randomized pivots yield central limit theorems with a significantly smaller error as compared to that of their classical counterparts under the same conditions. This constitutes a desirable result when a relatively small number of data is available. When a data set is too big to be processed, or when it constitutes a random sample from a super-population, we use our randomized pivots to infer about the mean based on significantly smaller sub-samples. The approach taken is shown to relate naturally to estimating distributions of both small and big data sets.

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 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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.727
Threshold uncertainty score0.402

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
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 science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.515
GPT teacher head0.426
Teacher spread0.089 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations6
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicProbability and Risk ModelsFrench-language works237,207