MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3010088418 · doi:10.1111/anzs.12327

Information criteria for inhomogeneous spatial point processes

2021· preprint· en· W3010088418 on OpenAlexaff
Achmad Choiruddin, Jean‐François Coeurjolly, Rasmus Waagepetersen

Bibliographic record

VenueAustralian & New Zealand Journal of Statistics · 2021
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicGeochemistry and Geologic Mapping
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Montréal
FundersDanmarks Frie ForskningsfondVillum Fonden
KeywordsAkaike information criterionBayesian information criterionPoint processInformation CriteriaPoisson distributionContext (archaeology)Bayesian probabilityModel selectionMathematicsPoint (geometry)Deviance information criterionCox processApplied mathematicsBayesian inferenceComputer scienceStatisticsEconometricsPoisson process

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Summary The theoretical foundation for a number of model selection criteria is established in the context of inhomogeneous point processes and under various asymptotic settings: infill, increasing domain and combinations of these. For inhomogeneous Poisson processes we consider Akaike's information criterion and the Bayesian information criterion, and in particular we identify the point process analogue of ‘sample size’ needed for the Bayesian information criterion. Considering general inhomogeneous point processes we derive new composite likelihood and composite Bayesian information criteria for selecting a regression model for the intensity function. The proposed model selection criteria are evaluated using simulations of Poisson processes and cluster point processes.

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)0.016
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.059
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 score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.085

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0160.059
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.281
Teacher spread0.252 · 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
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAustralian & New Zealand Journal of StatisticsSame topicGeochemistry and Geologic MappingFrench-language works237,207