MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2970526340 · doi:10.1002/sim.8354

A more intuitive and modern way to compute a small‐sample confidence interval for the mean of a Poisson distribution

2019· article· en· W2970526340 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueStatistics in Medicine · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistical Methods and Bayesian Inference
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityMcGill University Health Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPoisson distributionLink (geometry)Confidence intervalComputer scienceTRACE (psycholinguistics)ComputationSample (material)Sample size determinationStatisticsInterval (graph theory)Distribution (mathematics)MathematicsAlgorithmMathematical analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Small-sample confidence intervals for the mean of a Poisson distribution have been used since the 1930s. They can be computed by trial and error, or using a computation-saving link that few are aware of and that, even if they are, is neither intuitive nor easy to remember. I trace how and why this link has been used, even if the basis for it has been lost or ignored. I promote a direct and more meaningful link that can be easily used today without having to resort to tables or approximations suited to hand calculators. More importantly, this (time-based) link is instructive and intuitive, and thus more easily derived and understood.

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.

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)0.008
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: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.350
Threshold uncertainty score0.954

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.008
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 science0.0000.000
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 head0.068
GPT teacher head0.401
Teacher spread0.333 · 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