MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3124622365

Biased-Reduced Maximum Likelihood Estimation for the Zero-Inflated Poisson Distribution

2011· preprint· en· W3124622365 on OpenAlexaff
Jacob T. Schwartz, David E. A. Giles

Bibliographic record

VenueRePEc: Research Papers in Economics · 2011
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistical Methods and Bayesian Inference
Canadian institutionsUniversity of VictoriaUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMathematicsEstimatorStatisticsPoisson distributionMean squared errorZero-inflated modelMonte Carlo methodParametric statisticsDistribution (mathematics)Maximum likelihoodPoisson regressionMathematical analysisPopulation
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We investigate the small-sample quality of the maximum likelihood estimators (MLEs) of the parameters of the zero-inflated Poisson distribution. The finite-sample biases are determined to O(n-1) using an analytic bias reduction methodology based on the work of Cox and Snell (1968) and Cordeiro and Klein (1994). Monte Carlo simulations show that the MLEs have very small percentage biases for this distribution, but the analytic bias reduction methods essentially eliminate the bias without adversely affecting the mean squared error s of the estimators. The analytic adjustment compares favourably with the parametric bootstrap bias-corrected estimator, in terms of bias reduction itself, as well as with respect to mean squared error and Pitman’s nearness measure. Keywords Mathematics Subject Classification Zero-inflated Poisson, bias reduction, maximum likelihood estimation, bootstrap

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)0.175
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 score0.103

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0200.175
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.103
GPT teacher head0.399
Teacher spread0.296 · 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

Citations1
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRePEc: Research Papers in EconomicsSame topicStatistical Methods and Bayesian InferenceFrench-language works237,207