MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4399924348 · doi:10.1002/cjs.11808

Tolerance bands for exponential family functional data

2024· article· en· W4399924348 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Galappaththige S. R. de Silva, Pankaj K. Choudhary

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Statistics · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistical Methods and Inference
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of Texas at Austin
KeywordsExponential functionMathematicsNatural exponential familyExponential familyStatisticsMathematical analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract A tolerance band for a functional response provides a region that is expected to contain a given fraction of observations from the sampled population at each point in the domain. This band is a functional analogue of the tolerance interval for a univariate response. Although the problem of constructing functional tolerance bands has been considered for a Gaussian response, it has not been investigated for non‐Gaussian responses, which are common in biomedical applications. We describe a methodology for constructing tolerance bands for two non‐Gaussian members of the exponential family: binomial and Poisson. The approach is to first model the data using the framework of generalized functional principal components analysis. Then, a parameter is identified in which the marginal distribution of the response is stochastically monotone. We show that the tolerance limits can be readily obtained from confidence limits for this parameter, which in turn can be computed using large‐sample theory and bootstrapping. Our proposed methodology works for both dense and sparse functional data. We report the results of simulation studies designed to evaluate its performance and get recommendations for practical applications. We illustrate our proposed method using two actual biomedical studies, and also provide computer source code that implements our method.

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)0.001
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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.220
Threshold uncertainty score0.509

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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 head0.331
GPT teacher head0.367
Teacher spread0.036 · 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
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 venueCanadian Journal of StatisticsSame topicStatistical Methods and InferenceFrench-language works237,207