MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2969422181 · doi:10.1002/cjs.11520

A random‐effects model for clustered circular data

2019· article· en· W2969422181 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Louis‐Paul Rivest, Shogo Kato

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Statistics · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicBayesian Methods and Mixture Models
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
FundersFonds de recherche du Québec – Nature et technologiesJapan Society for the Promotion of ScienceNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsEstimatorStatisticsvon Mises distributionMathematicsCluster (spacecraft)Measure (data warehouse)Regression analysisRandom effects modelRegressionDistribution (mathematics)Maximum likelihoodvon Mises yield criterionComputer scienceEngineeringData miningMathematical analysisFinite element method

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This article considers a circular regression model for clustered data, where both the cluster effects and the regression errors have von Mises distributions. It involvesβ, a vector of parameters for the fixed effects, and two concentration parameters for the error distribution. A measure of intra‐cluster circular correlation and a predictor for an unobserved cluster random effect are studied. Preliminary estimators for the vectorβand the two concentration parameters are proposed, and their performance is compared with that of the maximum likelihood estimators in a simulation study. A numerical example investigating the factors impacting the orientation taken by a sand hopper when released is presented.The Canadian Journal of Statistics47: 712–728; 2019 © 2019 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)0.032
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.065
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.032
Threshold uncertainty score0.169

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0320.065
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.003
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0070.003
Research integrity0.0040.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.002

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 head0.059
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.213 · 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

Citations8
Published2019
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of StatisticsSame topicBayesian Methods and Mixture ModelsFrench-language works237,207