MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4200040246 · doi:10.18187/pjsor.v17i4.2512

On Smoothed MWSD Estimation of Mixing Proportion

2021· article· en· W4200040246 on OpenAlexaff
Satish Konda, K. L. Mehra, Ramakrishnaiah Y.S.

Bibliographic record

VenuePakistan Journal of Statistics and Operation Research · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicBayesian Methods and Mixture Models
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMathematicsEstimatorMixing (physics)StatisticsMean squared errorApplied mathematicsIndependent and identically distributed random variablesMonte Carlo methodConvergence (economics)Parametric statisticsMinimum mean square errorMean squareSquare (algebra)Random variableGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The problem considered in the present paper is estimation of mixing proportions of mixtures of two (known) distributions by using the minimum weighted square distance (MWSD) method. The two classes of smoothed and unsmoothed parametric estimators of mixing proportion proposed in a sense of MWSD due to Wolfowitz(1953) in a mixture model F(x)=p (x)+(1-p) (x) based on three independent and identically distributed random samples of sizes n and , =1,2 from the mixture and two component populations. Comparisons are made based on their derived mean square errors (MSE). The superiority of smoothed estimator over unsmoothed one is established theoretically and also conducting Monte-Carlo study in sense of minimum mean square error criterion. Large sample properties such as rates of a.s. convergence and asymptotic normality of these estimators are also established. The results thus established here are completely new in the literature.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.412
Teacher spread0.361 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePakistan Journal of Statistics and Operation ResearchSame topicBayesian Methods and Mixture ModelsFrench-language works237,207