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 OpenAlexafffund
Jan Koláček, Rohana J. Karunamuni

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.

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)0.026
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.143
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 score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.140

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0260.143
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.004
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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

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

Citations8
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAustrian Journal of StatisticsSame topicStatistical Methods and InferenceFrench-language works237,207