Bibliographic record
Abstract
This text began as notes for a course in statistical computing for second year actuarial and statistical students at the University of Western Ontario. Both authors are interested in statistical computing, both as support for our other research and for its own sake. However, we have found that our students were not learning the right sort of programming basics before they took our classes. At every level from undergraduate through Ph.D., we found that students were not able to produce simple, reliable programs; that they didn't understand enough about numerical computation to understand how rounding error could influence their results; and that they didn't know how to begin a difficult computational project. We looked into service courses from other departments, but we found that they emphasized languages and concepts that our students would not use again. Our students need to be comfortable with simple programming so that they can put together a simulation of a stochastic model; they also need to know enough about numerical analysis so that they can do numerical computations reliably. We were unable to find this mix in an existing course, so we designed our own. We chose to base this text on R. R is an open-source computing package which has seen a huge growth in popularity in the last few years. Being open source, it is easily obtainable by students and economical to install in our computing lab.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.493 | 0.304 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".