A selective review of statistical methods using calibration information from similar studies
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the era of big data, divide-and-conquer, parallel, and distributed inference methods have become increasingly popular. How to effectively use the calibration information from each machine in parallel computation has become a challenging task for statisticians and computer scientists. Many newly developed methods have roots in traditional statistical approaches that make use of calibration information. In this paper, we first review some classical statistical methods for using calibration information, including simple meta-analysis methods, parametric likelihood, empirical likelihood, and the generalized method of moments. We further investigate how these methods incorporate summarized or auxiliary information from previous studies, related studies, or populations. We find that the methods based on summarized data usually have little or nearly no efficiency loss compared with the corresponding methods based on all-individual data. Finally, we review some recently developed big data analysis methods including communication-efficient distributed approaches, renewal estimation, and incremental inference as examples of the latest developments in methods using calibration information.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it