MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3162338773 · doi:10.1002/sta4.387

A constrained minimum method for model selection

2021· article· en· W3162338773 on OpenAlexafffund
Min Tsao

Bibliographic record

VenueStat · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistical Methods and Inference
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsModel selectionConsistency (knowledge bases)Selection (genetic algorithm)Bayesian information criterionComputer scienceInformation CriteriaMathematical optimizationMathematicsBayesian probabilitySample size determinationAlgorithmArtificial intelligenceStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We propose a constrained minimum method for converting a hypothesis test into a model selection criterion that pursues consistency and sparsity of the selected model explicitly. The method achieves consistency by letting the significance level of the test go to zero at a certain speed depending on the sample size. It maximizes the sparsity by choosing the most sparse model among models not rejected by the test. The method may be used for model selection whenever a hypothesis test on the model parameter vector is available. We illustrate this method through its application to the best subset selection of linear models. Numerical comparisons with existing methods show that it has excellent accuracy and its selected model converges to the true model faster than the model chosen by the Bayesian information criterion.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.024
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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.036

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.024
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.003
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0040.003
Research integrity0.0020.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.002

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 head0.148
GPT teacher head0.453
Teacher spread0.305 · 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

Citations3
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStatSame topicStatistical Methods and InferenceFrench-language works237,207