MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4385899342 · doi:10.4236/ojs.2023.134024

Non-Regular Example of Confidence-Interval Construction

2023· article· en· W4385899342 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueOpen Journal of Statistics · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicAdvanced Statistical Methods and Models
Canadian institutionsBrock University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEstimatorConfidence intervalMathematicsInterval (graph theory)Sampling (signal processing)StatisticsBinomial proportion confidence intervalCoverage probabilitySimple (philosophy)CDF-based nonparametric confidence intervalCredible intervalMathematical optimizationConstruct (python library)Computer sciencePoisson distributionCombinatorics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

When dealing with a regular (fixed-support) one-parameter distribution, the corresponding maximum-likelihood estimator (MLE) is, to a good approximation, normally distributed. But, when the support boundaries are functions of the parameter, finding good approximation for the sampling distribution of MLE (needed to construct an accurate confidence interval for the parameter’s true value) may get very challenging. We demonstrate the nature of this problem, and show how to deal with it, by a detailed study of a specific situation. We also indicate several possible ways to bypass MLE by proposing alternate estimators; these, having relatively simple sampling distributions, then make constructing a confidence interval rather routine.

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.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.049
Threshold uncertainty score0.392

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.198
GPT teacher head0.456
Teacher spread0.258 · 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