MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4390912119 · doi:10.28924/2291-8639-22-2024-16

Sufficient Reduction Method for Bivariate Zero-Inflated Poisson Process

2024· article· en· W4390912119 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Sawaporn Hinsheranan

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Analysis and Applications · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicAdvanced Statistical Process Monitoring
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Science and Technology Development Agency
KeywordsEWMA chartBivariate analysisMathematicsStatisticsPoisson distributionControl chartMean-shiftReduction (mathematics)Step detectionProcess (computing)Zero (linguistics)Constant false alarm rateAlgorithmComputer sciencePattern recognition (psychology)Artificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The sufficient reduction (SR) method was developed for detecting a mean shift in a bivariate zero-inflated Poisson process. The derived sequence of statistics from the reduction was monitored with the EWMA and EWMA-SN charts for monitoring a mean shift in a process. The detection performance was compared against other SR methods developed for a Poisson process and evaluated via the simulations under the different shift sizes and proportions of zero in the process. The results showed that the presence of zeros in the process influenced the performance of SR methods by delaying shift detection and reducing the detection accuracy, especially when shift size was small. The proposed method with the EWMA chart gave the shortest delay for detecting a small to moderate shift and gave the highest true alarm rate and the lowest non-detection rate for detecting a small shift compared to other methods.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.058
GPT teacher head0.508
Teacher spread0.450 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Analysis and ApplicationsSame topicAdvanced Statistical Process MonitoringFrench-language works237,207