Logarithmic confidence estimation of a ratio of binomial proportions for dependent populations
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
This article investigates the logarithmic interval estimation of a ratio of two binomial proportions in dependent samples. Previous studies suggest that the confidence intervals of the difference between two correlated proportions and their ratio typically do not possess closed-form solutions. Moreover, the computation process is complex and often based on a maximum likelihood estimator, which is a biased estimator of the ratio. We look at the data from two dependent samples and explore the general problem of estimating the ratio of two proportions. Each sample is obtained in the framework of direct binomial sampling. Our goal is to demonstrate that the normal approximation for the estimation of the ratio is reliable for the construction of a confidence interval. The main characteristics of confidence estimators will be investigated by a Monte Carlo simulation. We also provide recommendations for applying the asymptotic logarithmic interval. The estimations of the coverage probability, average width, standard deviation of interval width, and index H are presented as the criteria of our judgment. The simulation studies indicate that the proposed interval performs well based on the aforementioned criteria. Finally, the confidence intervals are illustrated with three real data examples.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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