MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4253640515 · doi:10.1002/0470013192.bsa057

Bootstrap Inference

2005· other· en· W4253640515 on OpenAlexaff
Angelo J. Canty, A. C. Davison

Bibliographic record

VenueEncyclopedia of Statistics in Behavioral Science · 2005
Typeother
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicSimulation Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConfidence intervalStatistical inferenceInferenceEstimatorStatistical hypothesis testingComputer scienceStatisticsEconometricsMachine learningArtificial intelligenceMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Bootstrap methods are powerful and widely useful simulation procedures, whose applications include assessing the uncertainty of a statistical estimator, constructing a confidence interval, and computing the significance probability associated with a hypothesis test.

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)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.107
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.060
Threshold uncertainty score0.201

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.107
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0050.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0600.042

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 head0.125
GPT teacher head0.484
Teacher spread0.358 · 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 designNot applicable
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 Statistics in Behavioral ScienceSame topicSimulation Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207