MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4319081599 · doi:10.3390/math11030762

A Conway–Maxwell–Poisson Type Generalization of Hypergeometric Distribution

2023· article· en· W4319081599 on OpenAlexaff
Sudip Roy, Ram C. Tripathi, N. Balakrishnan

Bibliographic record

VenueMathematics · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistical Distribution Estimation and Applications
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHypergeometric distributionMathematicsApplied mathematicsHypergeometric functionPoisson distributionBinomial distributionGeneralizationNegative binomial distributionStatisticsPure mathematicsMathematical analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The hypergeometric distribution has gained its importance in practice as it pertains to sampling without replacement from a finite population. It has been used to estimate the population size of rare species in ecology, discrete failure rate in reliability, fraction defective in quality control, and the number of initial faults present in software coding. Recently, Borges et al. considered a COM type generalization of the binomial distribution, called COM–Poisson–Binomial (CMPB) and investigated many of its characteristics and some interesting applications. In the same spirit, we develop here a generalization of the hypergeometric distribution, called the COM–hypergeometric distribution. We discuss many of its characteristics such as the limiting forms, the over- and underdispersion, and the behavior of its failure rate. We write its probability-generating function (pgf) in the form of Kemp’s family of distributions when the newly introduced shape parameter is a positive integer. In this form, closed-form expressions are derived for its mean and variance. Finally, we develop statistical inference procedures for the model parameters and illustrate the results by extensive Monte Carlo simulations.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.885
Threshold uncertainty score0.496

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.120
GPT teacher head0.383
Teacher spread0.263 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMathematicsSame topicStatistical Distribution Estimation and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207