Improvements on Cross-Validation: The 632+ Bootstrap Method
Impact in
Classified as
- Authors
- Bradley EfronRobert Tibshirani
In The Last Decade
doi.org/10.1080/01621459.1997.10474007 →Countries where authors are citing Improvements on Cross-Validation: The 632+ Bootstrap Method
This map shows the geographic impact of Improvements on Cross-Validation: The 632+ Bootstrap Method. It shows the number of citations coming from papers published by authors working in each country. You can also color the map by specialization and compare the number of citations received by Improvements on Cross-Validation: The 632+ Bootstrap Method with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Improvements on Cross-Validation: The 632+ Bootstrap Method more than expected).
Fields of papers citing Improvements on Cross-Validation: The 632+ Bootstrap Method
This network shows the impact of Improvements on Cross-Validation: The 632+ Bootstrap Method. Nodes represent research fields, and links connect fields that are likely to share authors. Colored nodes show fields that tend to cite the Improvements on Cross-Validation: The 632+ Bootstrap Method.
About Improvements on Cross-Validation: The 632+ Bootstrap Method
This paper, published in 1997, received 1.1k indexed citations . Written by Bradley Efron and Robert Tibshirani covering the research area of Genetics and Statistics and Probability. It is primarily cited by scholars working on Artificial Intelligence (246 citations), Molecular Biology (190 citations), Statistics and Probability (147 citations), Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging (73 citations) and Ecology (68 citations). Published in Journal of the American Statistical Association.
Rankless uses publication and citation data sourced from OpenAlex, an open and comprehensive bibliographic database. While OpenAlex provides broad and valuable coverage of the global research landscape, it—like all bibliographic datasets—has inherent limitations. These include incomplete records, variations in author disambiguation, differences in journal indexing, and delays in data updates. As a result, some metrics and network relationships displayed in Rankless may not fully capture the entirety of a scholar's output or impact.
This paper is also available at doi.org/10.1080/01621459.1997.10474007.