MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2980711080 · doi:10.5539/ijsp.v8n6p31

Partitioning Problems Arising From Independent Shifted-Geometric and Exponential Samples With Unequal Intensities

2019· article· en· W2980711080 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Thierry Huillet

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Statistics and Probability · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStochastic processes and statistical mechanics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMuséum National d'Histoire NaturelleAgence Nationale de la Recherche
KeywordsStarsExponential functionPopulationObservableInversePhysicsAstrophysicsStatistical physicsMathematicsEnergy (signal processing)Mathematical analysisGeometryQuantum mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Two problems dealing with the random skewed splitting of some population into J different types are considered. In a first discrete setup, the sizes of the sub-populations come from independent shifted-geometric with unequal characteristics. Various J → ∞ asymptotics of the induced occupancies are investigated: the total population size, the number of unfilled types, the index of consecutive filled types, the maximum number of individuals in some state and the index of the type(s) achieving this maximum. Equivalently, this problem is amenable to the classical one of assigning indistinguishable particles (Bosons) at J sites, in some random allocation problem. In a second parallel setup in the continuum, we consider a large population of say J ‘stars’, the intensities of which have independent exponential distributions with unequal inverse temperatures. Stars are being observed only if their intensities exceed some threshold value. Depending on the choice of the inverse temperatures, we investigate the energy partitioning among stars, the total energy emitted by the observed stars, the number of the observable stars and the energy and index of the star emitting the most.

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)0.000
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: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.377
Threshold uncertainty score0.411

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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 science0.0000.000
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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.244 · 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

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Statistics and ProbabilitySame topicStochastic processes and statistical mechanicsFrench-language works237,207