MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1978696365 · doi:10.4236/ojs.2011.13018

Revisit the Two Sample t-Test with a Known Ratio of Variances

2011· article· en· W1978696365 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

VenueOpen Journal of Statistics · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicAdvanced Statistical Methods and Models
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStatisticsMathematicsLikelihood-ratio testInferenceSample size determinationSample (material)Levene's testComputer scienceArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Inference for the difference of two independent normal means has been widely studied in staitstical literature. In this paper, we consider the case that the variances are unknown but with a known relationship between them. This situation arises frequently in practice, for example, when two instruments report averaged responses of the same object based on a different number of replicates, the ratio of the variances of the response is then known, and is the ratio of the number of replicates going into each response. A likelihood based method is proposed. Simulation results show that the proposed method is very accurate even when the sample sizes are small. Moreover, the proposed method can be extended to the case that the ratio of the variances is unknown.

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)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
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 score0.034
Threshold uncertainty score0.471

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.208
GPT teacher head0.436
Teacher spread0.228 · 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