MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7011513619

Monitor’s Report Regarding Compliance by Defendants Residential Capital, LLC, GMAC Mortgage LLC, and Ally Financial Inc. for the Measurement Periods Ended March 31, 2013 and June 30, 2013

2013· article· en· W7011513619 on OpenAlex

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicMarketing and Advertising Strategies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTest (biology)Sample (material)Margin (machine learning)Statistical hypothesis testingWork (physics)Quarter (Canadian coin)Confidence interval
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Metrics testing.In Test Period 3, the IRG conducted tests on all of the Metrics in effect under the Enforcement Terms.In Test Period 4, the IRG conducted tests on all of the Metrics with the exception of Metrics 15, 16 and 17.These Metrics were not tested in Test Period 4 because they are policy and procedure (P&P) Metrics that are tested annually.The IRG tested Metrics 15, 16, and 17 in Test Period 1, and again in Test Period 2 and Test Period 3, which was more stringent than required by the Work Plan.These three Metrics will not be tested again until the first calendar quarter of 2014 (Test Period 7).The Metrics tested in Test Period 3 and Test Period 4, and their respective Threshold Error Rates, are listed below, in Section III, Tables 1 and2. 2.Sampling.The IRG uses a statistical sampling approach to evaluate Servicer's compliance with the Metrics subject to loan-level testing.The IRG selects a sample of loans randomly from one or more mortgage loan populations, as defined in the Work Plan for each Metric.In its loan-level testing, the IRG utilizes statistical parameters based on a 95% confidence level for Metrics testing, 5% estimated error rate, and a 2% margin of error.A 95% confidence level implies that one can be 95% confident the testing results would reflect the true results in the population.A 5% error rate means that one expects to find five errors in a sample of 100.A 2% margin of error implies that one can expect a 98% level of precision.Under the Work Plan, the size of the samples selected by the IRG from the appropriate mortgage loan populations must be statistically significant.The IRG selected larger sample sizes than the required statistically significant sample sizes in the event that additional sample loans are needed to replace sample loans that are not testable.Under the Work Plan, these non-testable loans are treated as "Not Applicable" and require replacement with other loans in the sample.The IRG documented its sampling

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 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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Scholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.339
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.219 · 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

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMarketing and Advertising StrategiesFrench-language works237,207