MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1966264920 · doi:10.1198/000313008x269738

Confidence Intervals for a Discrete Population Median

2008· article· en· W1966264920 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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe American Statistician · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistical Methods in Clinical Trials
Canadian institutionsHEC Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConfidence intervalCDF-based nonparametric confidence intervalRobust confidence intervalsStatisticsPopulationConfidence distributionConfidence regionStatisticSign testMathematicsCredible intervalSign (mathematics)Computer scienceMedicineMann–Whitney U testWilcoxon signed-rank test

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this article, we consider the problem of constructing confidence intervals for a population median when the underlying population is discrete. We describe seven methods of assigning confidence levels to order statistic based confidence intervals, all of which are easy to implement. A simulation study shows that, with discrete populations, it is possible to obtain consistently more accurate confidence levels and shorter intervals compared to the ones reported by the classical method which is implemented in commercial software. More precisely, the best results are obtained by inverting a two-tailed sign test that properly takes into account tied observations. Some real data examples illustrate the use of these confidence intervals.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.076
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.392
Threshold uncertainty score0.932

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.076
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.542
GPT teacher head0.582
Teacher spread0.040 · 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