Efficient Estimation Strategies for Estimating the Shape Parameter of the Birnbaum–Saunders Distribution Using Shrinkage Preliminary Test Type Estimators
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
Abstract In this paper, we are concerned with the point estimation of the shape parameter of the Birnbaum–Saunders (BS) distribution while fixing the scale parameter. Our goal is to improve the usual maximum likelihood estimator by incorporating both the sample information and the non-sample information which is available from the past. The suggested estimation strategies are based on the principles of linear shrinkage, preliminary test and a combination of both shrinkage and the preliminary test in an optimal way. The non-sample information is being tested using a preliminary test statistic by means of Wald’s procedure. The analytical expressions for the asymptotic bias and the asymptotic mean square error of the estimators under consideration have been derived. A comprehensive simulation study is also designed to investigate the performance of the estimators in small sample situations. The simulation results are in line with the derived mathematical results. A real-life data application has also been carried out to appraise the performance of the estimators.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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