MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3123495241

Analytic Bias Correction for Maximum Likelihood Estimators When the Bias Function is Non-Constant

2017· preprint· en· W3123495241 on OpenAlexaff
Ryan T. Godwin, David E. A. Giles

Bibliographic record

VenueRePEc: Research Papers in Economics · 2017
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicAdvanced Statistical Methods and Models
Canadian institutionsUniversity of VictoriaUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEstimatorConstant (computer programming)MathematicsStatisticsBias of an estimatorFunction (biology)Omitted-variable biasExpression (computer science)Consistent estimatorEconometricsApplied mathematicsComputer scienceMinimum-variance unbiased estimator
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recently, many papers have obtained analytic expressions for the biases of various maximum likelihood estimators, despite their lack of closed-form solution. These bias expressions have provided an attractive alternative to the bootstrap. Unless the bias function is “flat, ” however, the expressions are being evaluated at the wrong point(s). We propose an “improved” analytic bias adjusted estimator, in which the bias expression is evaluated at a more appropriate point (at the bias adjusted estimator itself). Simulations illustrate that the improved analytic bias adjusted estimator can eliminate significantly more bias than the simple estimator which has been well established in the literature.

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)0.020
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.136
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: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.104

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0200.136
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.004
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.207
GPT teacher head0.440
Teacher spread0.233 · 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

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRePEc: Research Papers in EconomicsSame topicAdvanced Statistical Methods and ModelsFrench-language works237,207