MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3037512058 · doi:10.1214/20-aoas1331

Focused model selection for linear mixed models with an application to whale ecology

2020· article· en· W3037512058 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

VenueThe Annals of Applied Statistics · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistical Methods and Bayesian Inference
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
FundersNorges Forskningsråd
KeywordsWhalingGeneralized linear mixed modelModel selectionMixed modelEstimatorLinear modelSelection (genetic algorithm)Computer scienceWhaleInformation CriteriaEcologyEconometricsMathematicsStatisticsArtificial intelligenceMachine learningBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A central point of disagreement, in certain long-standing discussions about a particular whaling dataset in the Scientific Committee of the International Whaling Commission, has directly involved model selection issues for linear mixed effect models. The biological question under discussion is associated with a clearly defined parameter of primary interest, a focus parameter, which makes model selection with the Focused Information Criterion (FIC) more appropriate than other selection methods. Since the existing FIC methodology has not covered the case of linear mixed effects models, this article sets up the required framework and develops the necessary formulae for the relevant FIC. Our new criterion requires the asymptotic distribution of estimators derived for a given candidate linear mixed model but with behaviour examined under a wider linear mixed model. These results, needed here to build our FIC, also have independent interest.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.472
Threshold uncertainty score0.474

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.195
GPT teacher head0.406
Teacher spread0.211 · 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