MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413318220 · doi:10.3329/jsr.v59i1.83684

Advancements in shrinkage estimation utilizing robust parameters for the Birnbaum-Saunders distribution in the case of multiple samples

2025· article· en· W4413318220 on OpenAlexaff
Waqas Makhdoom, Muhammad Kashif Ali Shah, S. Ejaz Ahmed

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Statistical Research · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicStructural Health Monitoring Techniques
Canadian institutionsBrock University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsShrinkageEstimationStatisticsMathematicsEconometricsComputer scienceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this study, we expanded the improved estimation strategies for robust estimators of the Birnbaum-Saunders distribution for the shape parameter for multiple samples while integrating sample and uncertain prior information. We have used the following estimators: the Graybill-Deal type estimator, the linear shrinkage estimator, the pretest estimator, the shrinkage preliminary estimator, the James-stein and positive James-stein estimation techniques. We developed a test statistic to accept or reject the null hypothesis when considering uncertain prior information. We also explored the asymptotic properties of the proposed estimators. To evaluate their effectiveness, we conducted Monte Carlo simulations using various parameter values and sample sizes that align with our theoretical findings. Additionally, we included a real data example to illustrate the estimators performance in real life application. Journal of Statistical Research 2025, Vol. 59, No. 1, pp. 65-79

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)0.023
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.067
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 score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.121

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0230.067
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.004
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.003
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 head0.165
GPT teacher head0.462
Teacher spread0.297 · 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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Statistical ResearchSame topicStructural Health Monitoring TechniquesFrench-language works237,207