Conditional Probabilities of Rejecting <i>H</i> <sub>0</sub> by Pooled and Separate-Variances <i>t</i> Tests Given Heterogeneity of Sample Variances
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 It is known that the Type I error probability of the Student t test is spuriously elevated or depressed by unequal variances combined with unequal sample sizes and that the Welch separate-variances version of the t test usually eliminates these effects. The present study found conditional probabilities of rejecting the null hypothesis, for both significance tests, given various conditions on the sample variances. The conditional probability of a Type I error, given that sample variances are nearly equal, is also elevated or depressed, sometimes to an even greater extent than the unconditional probability. For various combinations of sample sizes and variance heterogeneity, similar results characterize the Welch t test. These findings imply that researchers cannot protect the significance level and power of the t test by deciding whether to use a pooled-variance or separate-variances version based solely on inspection of sample data. Key Words: Student t test: Welch t testHomogeneity of variancePooled variancesSeparate variancesConditional probabilityType I error Acknowledgments
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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