A Conway–Maxwell–Poisson Type Generalization of Hypergeometric Distribution
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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 | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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.
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".