Modeling under or over-dispersed binomial count data by using extended Altham distribution families
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
While aiming particularly at handling under-dispersion, we explore a type of models constructed conservatively using the minimum information of first two moments for the fitting of binomial count data, which could have under, equal or over-dispersion. The extended Altham distribution (EAD) families were presented in this study. The extended Altham families are very close to the binomial distribution under equal dispersion setting, implying that they are alternative models of the binomial distribution. The feature that extended Altham families can reach the full range of dispersion outperforms some commonly used models such as extended beta-binomial and quasi-binomial which have restricted ranges of dispersion. Moreover, the extended Altham family can have double peaks at two boundaries, indicating they are feasible for fitting the double tail inflation phenomenon. This study illustrated the modeling using extended Altham families for both under-dispersed and over-dispersed binomial data resulted from disease cases within the same family.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it