MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3041993154 · doi:10.1080/03610918.2020.1788589

Penalty, post pretest and shrinkage strategies in a partially linear model

2020· article· en· W3041993154 on OpenAlexafffund
Siwaporn Phukongtong, Supranee Lisawadi, S. Ejaz Ahmed

Bibliographic record

VenueCommunications in Statistics - Simulation and Computation · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistical Methods and Inference
Canadian institutionsBrock University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaThammasat University
KeywordsEstimatorSubspace topologySmoothingMathematicsShrinkageMonte Carlo methodBenchmark (surveying)StatisticsLinear modelMathematical optimizationApplied mathematicsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We addressed the problem of estimating regression coefficients for partially linear models, where the nonparametric component is approximated using smoothing splines and subspace information is available. We proposed pretest and shrinkage estimation strategies using the profile likelihood estimator as the benchmark. We examined the asymptotic distributional bias and risk of the proposed estimators, and assessed their relative performance with respect to the unrestricted profile likelihood estimator under varying degrees of uncertainty in the subspace information. The shrinkage-based estimators uniformly dominated the unrestricted profile likelihood estimator. The positive-part shrinkage estimator was shown to be more efficient than the others, and was robust against uncertain subspace information. We also compared the performance of penalty estimators with those of the proposed estimators via a Monte Carlo simulation, and found that the proposed estimators were more efficient. The proposed estimation strategies were applied to a real dataset to evaluate their practical usefulness. The results were consistent with those from theory and simulation.

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)0.002
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.508
Threshold uncertainty score0.543

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
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 head0.329
GPT teacher head0.499
Teacher spread0.171 · 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
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

Citations1
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCommunications in Statistics - Simulation and ComputationSame topicStatistical Methods and InferenceFrench-language works237,207