Logarithmic confidence intervals for the cross-product ratio of binomial proportions under different sampling schemes
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
We consider the problem of logarithmic interval estimation for a cross-product ratio ρ=p1(1−p2)p2(1−p1) with data from two independent Bernoulli samples. Each sample may be obtained in the framework of direct or inverse Binomial sampling schemes. Asymptotic logarithmic confidence intervals are constructed under different types of sampling schemes, with parameter estimators demonstrating exponentially decreasing bias. Our goal is to investigate the cases when the relatively simple normal approximations for estimators of the cross-product ratio are reliable for constructing logarithmic confidence intervals. We use the closeness of the confidence coefficient to the nominal confidence level as our main evaluation criterion, and use the Monte-Carlo method to investigate the key probability characteristics of intervals corresponding to all possible combinations of sampling schemes. We present estimations of the coverage probability, expectation and standard deviation of interval widths in tables. Also, we provide some recommendations for applying each logarithmic interval obtained.
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 | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| 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