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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Data sharpening in kernel regression has been shown to be an effective method of reducing bias while having minimal effects on variance. Earlier efforts to iterate the data sharpening procedure have been less effective, due to the employment of an inappropriate sharpening transformation. In this article, an iterated data sharpening algorithm is proposed which reduces the asymptotic bias at each iteration, while having modest effects on the variance. The efficacy of the iterative approach is demonstrated theoretically and via a simulation study. Boundary effects persist and the affected region successively grows when the iteration is applied to local constant regression. By contrast, boundary bias successively decreases for each iteration step when applied to local linear regression. This study also shows that after iteration, the resulting estimates are less sensitive to bandwidth choice, and a further simulation study demonstrates that iterated data sharpening with data-driven bandwidth selection via cross-validation can lead to more accurate regression function estimation. Examples with real data are used to illustrate the scope of change made possible by using iterated data sharpening and to also identify its limitations. Supplementary materials for this article are available online.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it