Bibliographic record
Abstract
The importance of the normal distribution for fitting continuous data is well known. However, in many practical situations data distribution departs from normality. For example, the sample skewness and the sample kurtosis are far away from 0 and 3, respectively, which are nice properties of normal distributions. So, it is important to have formal tests of normality against any alternative. D'Agostino et al. [A suggestion for using powerful and informative tests of normality, Am. Statist. 44 (1990), pp. 316–321] review four procedures Z 2(g 1), Z 2(g 2), D and K 2 for testing departure from normality. The first two of these procedures are tests of normality against departure due to skewness and kurtosis, respectively. The other two tests are omnibus tests. An alternative to the normal distribution is a class of skew-normal distributions (see [A. Azzalini, A class of distributions which includes the normal ones, Scand. J. Statist. 12 (1985), pp. 171–178]). In this paper, we obtain a score test (W) and a likelihood ratio test (LR) of goodness of fit of the normal regression model against the skew-normal family of regression models. It turns out that the score test is based on the sample skewness and is of very simple form. The performance of these six procedures, in terms of size and power, are compared using simulations. The level properties of the three statistics LR, W and Z 2(g 1) are similar and close to the nominal level for moderate to large sample sizes. Also, their power properties are similar for small departure from normality due to skewness (γ1≤0.4). Of these, the score test statistic has a very simple form and computationally much simpler than the other two statistics. The LR statistic, in general, has highest power, although it is computationally much complex as it requires estimates of the parameters under the normal model as well as those under the skew-normal model. So, the score test may be used to test for normality against small departure from normality due to skewness. Otherwise, the likelihood ratio statistic LR should be used as it detects general departure from normality (due to both skewness and kurtosis) with, in general, largest power.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.065 | 0.380 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.003 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".