Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The problem posed by exact confidence intervals (CIs) which can be either all‐inclusive or empty for a nonnegligible set of sample points is known to have no solution within CI theory. Confidence belts causing improper CIs can be modified by using margins of error from the renewed theory of errors initiated by J. W. Tukey—briefly described in the article—for which an extended Fraser's frequency interpretation is given. This approach is consistent with Kolmogorov's axiomatization of probability, in which a probability and an error measure obey the same axioms, although the connotation of the two words is different. An algorithm capable of producing a margin of error for any parameter derived from the five parameters of the bivariate normal distribution is provided. Margins of error correcting Fieller's CIs for a ratio of means are obtained, as are margins of error replacing Jolicoeur's CIs for the slope of the major axis. Margins of error using Dempster's conditioning that can correct optimal, but improper, CIs for the noncentrality parameter of a noncentral chi‐square distribution are also given.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.033 | 0.186 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".