MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3209217553 · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2111.02863

Nonparametric Simulation Extrapolation for Measurement Error Models

2021· preprint· en· W3209217553 on OpenAlex
Dylan Spicker, Michael P. Wallace, Grace Y. Yi

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenuearXiv (Cornell University) · 2021
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistical Methods and Bayesian Inference
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsExtrapolationNonparametric statisticsReplicateObservational errorComputer scienceNormalityErrors-in-variables modelsAlgorithmStatisticsMathematicsMachine learning

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The presence of measurement error is a widespread issue which, when ignored, can render the results of an analysis unreliable. Numerous corrections for the effects of measurement error have been proposed and studied, often under the assumption of a normally distributed, additive measurement error model. One such method is simulation extrapolation, or SIMEX. In many situations observed data are non-symmetric, heavy-tailed, or otherwise highly non-normal. In these settings, correction techniques relying on the assumption of normality are undesirable. We propose an extension to the simulation extrapolation method which is nonparametric in the sense that no specific distributional assumptions are required on the error terms. The technique is implemented when either validation data or replicate measurements are available, and is designed to be immediately accessible for those familiar with simulation extrapolation.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.695
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.468
GPT teacher head0.319
Teacher spread0.148 · 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