MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3123194690 · doi:10.1017/asb.2015.15

FITTING MIXTURES OF ERLANGS TO CENSORED AND TRUNCATED DATA USING THE EM ALGORITHM

2015· article· en· W3123194690 on OpenAlexaff
Roel Verbelen, Lan Gong, Katrien Antonio, Andrei L. Badescu, Sheldon S. Lin

Bibliographic record

VenueAstin Bulletin · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicBayesian Methods and Mixture Models
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAlgorithmClass (philosophy)Computer scienceExpectation–maximization algorithmMathematicsApplied mathematicsMaximum likelihoodStatisticsArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract We discuss how to fit mixtures of Erlangs to censored and truncated data by iteratively using the EM algorithm. Mixtures of Erlangs form a very versatile, yet analytically tractable, class of distributions making them suitable for loss modeling purposes. The effectiveness of the proposed algorithm is demonstrated on simulated data as well as real data sets.

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)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.043
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.064

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.043
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.003
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.004
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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 head0.074
GPT teacher head0.311
Teacher spread0.237 · 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

Citations77
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAstin BulletinSame topicBayesian Methods and Mixture ModelsFrench-language works237,207