MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Monte Carlo Studies, Empirical Response Surfaces in

2005· other· en· W4229936406 on OpenAlexaff
Simon Power

Bibliographic record

VenueEncyclopedia of Statistical Sciences · 2005
Typeother
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicProbabilistic and Robust Engineering Design
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMonte Carlo methodStatistical physicsMonte Carlo method in statistical physicsComputer scienceSimple (philosophy)Monte Carlo molecular modelingBridge (graph theory)Hybrid Monte CarloDynamic Monte Carlo methodMathematicsMarkov chain Monte CarloPhysicsStatisticsMedicineEpistemology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This article discusses the role of empirical response surfaces in succinctly summarizing the results of Monte Carlo studies and providing a simple means of predicting the outcome of Monte Carlo experiments that were not explicitly included in a particular study. It includes a simple illustrative example and provides a bridge to 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)0.032
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.166
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.032
Threshold uncertainty score0.169

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0320.166
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.004
Scholarly communication0.0030.004
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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 head0.124
GPT teacher head0.429
Teacher spread0.305 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations0
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEncyclopedia of Statistical SciencesSame topicProbabilistic and Robust Engineering DesignFrench-language works237,207