Multiple Comparison Tests: Nonparametric and Resampling Approaches
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 Resampling‐based multiple comparison procedures attempt to circumvent the deleterious effects of nonnormality and/or variance heterogeneity by utilizing empirical rather than theoretical sampling distributions of test statistics. In particular, the original observed data are randomly resampled in order to build an empirical sampling distribution for the test statistic, and the observed test statistic can then be compared to quantiles in this empirical distribution to determine statistical significance or to compute confidence intervals. We present resampling test statistics that can be used to test pairwise and complex contrasts among treatment group trimmed means. Trimmed means are used to circumvent problems due to nonnormality. Moreover, the test statistic is designed to deal with variance heterogeneity. Combining robust estimators (trimmed means) with a heteroscedastic test statistic (e.g., Welch's (1938) two‐sample test) and applying a bootstrap method results in test statistics that should be robust to the combined effects of nonnormality and variance heterogeneity.
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 | 0.003 | 0.054 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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