MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W37344572 · doi:10.17713/ajs.v38i1.257

On Boundary Correction in Kernel Estimation of ROC Curves

2016· article· en· W37344572 on OpenAlex

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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueAustrian Journal of Statistics · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistical Methods and Inference
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsKernel smootherEstimatorMathematicsSmoothingKernel (algebra)Boundary (topology)Receiver operating characteristicNonparametric statisticsKernel density estimationVariable kernel density estimationFunction (biology)Parametric statisticsApplied mathematicsStatisticsAlgorithmKernel methodArtificial intelligenceComputer scienceSupport vector machineMathematical analysisRadial basis function kernel

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curve is a statistical tool for evaluating the accuracy of diagnostics tests. The empirical ROC curve (which is a step function) is the most commonly used non-parametric estimator for the ROC curve. On the other hand, kernel smoothing methods have been used to obtain smooth ROC curves. The preceding process is based on kernel estimates of the distribution functions. It has been observedthat kernel distribution estimators are not consistent when estimating a distribution function near the boundary of its support. This problem is due to “boundary effects” that occur in nonparametric functional estimation. To avoid these difficulties, we propose a generalized reflection method of boundary correction in the estimation problem of ROC curves. The proposed method generates a class of boundary corrected estimators.

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)0.016
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
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 score0.669
Threshold uncertainty score0.992

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.016
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 head0.086
GPT teacher head0.372
Teacher spread0.287 · 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