MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2999691300 · doi:10.1002/cjs.11529

Functional measurement error in functional regression

2020· article· en· W2999691300 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Sneha Jadhav, Shuangge Ma

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Statistics · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistical Methods and Inference
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFunctional data analysisScalar (mathematics)Observational errorContext (archaeology)Computer scienceLinear regressionLinear formRegression analysisMathematicsConditional expectationGeneralized linear modelStatisticsApplied mathematicsMathematical analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Measurement error is an important problem that has not been studied very well in the context of functional data analysis. To the best of our knowledge, there are no existing methods that address the presence of functional measurement errors in generalized functional linear models. In this article, a novel approach is proposed to estimate the slope function in the presence of measurement error in the generalized functional linear model with a scalar response. This work significantly advances the existing conditional score method to accommodate the case where both the measurement error and independent variables lie in infinite dimensional spaces. Asymptotic results are established for the proposed estimate, and its behaviour is studied via simulations, where the response is continuous or binary. Analysis of Canadian Weather data highlights the practical utility of our method. The Canadian Journal of Statistics 48: 238–258; 2020 © 2020 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)0.045
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.178
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 score0.045
Threshold uncertainty score0.239

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0450.178
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.006
Scholarly communication0.0030.004
Open science0.0030.004
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.335
GPT teacher head0.335
Teacher spread0.000 · 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

Citations12
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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