MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4401090911 · doi:10.1080/03610918.2024.2378149

On the prediction of rare events when sampling from large data

2024· article· en· W4401090911 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Johanna de Haan‐Ward, Simon J. Bonner, Douglas G. Woolford

Bibliographic record

VenueCommunications in Statistics - Simulation and Computation · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFire effects on ecosystems
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersCanadian Statistical Sciences InstituteNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsStatisticsCovariateSampling (signal processing)Stratified samplingLogistic regressionSampling designSimple random sampleRange (aeronautics)MathematicsOffset (computer science)Importance samplingComputer scienceSample size determinationSample (material)StratumData miningEconometricsMonte Carlo methodEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

When modeling rare events using logistic regression, independent samples of event occurrence (ones) and nonoccurrence (zeros) are commonly taken from large datasets in order to fit models efficiently. A deterministic offset may then be included in the model to compensate for that sampling method. We propose a more complex sampling approach using stratified sampling within the sets of ones and zeros to ensure that we may sample more zeros from strata of interest. This design may avoid situations in which a random sample of zeros fails to capture the range of a key covariate. We employ sampling weights along with stratum-specific intercepts to obtain unbiased estimates of the logistic regression coefficients (including the intercept) and their standard errors. We use simulation to show that this method provides unbiased parameter estimates comparable with those of maximum likelihood. We also illustrate an application of this method to wildland fire occurrence prediction in a study area in northwestern Ontario, Canada.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.849
Threshold uncertainty score0.254

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.139
GPT teacher head0.393
Teacher spread0.254 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCommunications in Statistics - Simulation and ComputationSame topicFire effects on ecosystemsFrench-language works237,207