MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3209700650 · doi:10.1080/03610926.2021.1986531

State space splitting of a finite markov process and some discussions on related counting processes

2021· article· en· W3209700650 on OpenAlexaff
Lirong Cui, He Yi, N. Balakrishnan

Bibliographic record

VenueCommunication in Statistics- Theory and Methods · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicAdvanced Statistical Process Monitoring
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsFinite stateProcess (computing)State spaceMarkov processState (computer science)Space (punctuation)Counting processMarkov chainComputer scienceTheoretical computer scienceMathematicsStatistical physicsAlgorithmPhysicsStatisticsProgramming language

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, state space of a time-homogeneous Markov process is split into several ordered subspaces. Then, there are three kinds of transitions between states—transitions from a higher-order subspace to a lower-order subspace, transitions within the same subspace, and transitions from a lower-order subspace to a higher-order subspace. Considering time interval omission problem and first passage time considered, we define some related counting processes for the Markov process and discuss their associated probabilities, expectations and generating functions by using Laplace transform. The main results are presented in matrix forms. The relationships among counting processes and their special cases are also discussed briefly. Some simple numerical examples are presented to illustrate the established results. These results will be useful in different problems arising in reliability, economics and social science fields.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.077
GPT teacher head0.496
Teacher spread0.419 · 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 routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCommunication in Statistics- Theory and MethodsSame topicAdvanced Statistical Process MonitoringFrench-language works237,207