MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1998328714 · doi:10.1145/1277741.1277892

Validity and power of t-test for comparing MAP and GMAP

2007· article· en· W1998328714 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

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicAdvanced Statistical Methods and Models
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWilcoxon signed-rank testSign testStatisticsTest (biology)MathematicsStatistical powerRange (aeronautics)Power (physics)Sample size determinationSign (mathematics)Student's t-testMann–Whitney U testStatistical significanceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We examine the validity and power of the t-test, Wilcoxon test, and sign test in determining whether or not the difference in performance between two IR systems is significant. Empirical tests conducted on subsets of the TREC2004 Robust Retrieval collection indicate that the p-values computed by these tests for the difference in mean average precision (MAP) between two systems are very accurate fora wide range of sample sizes and significance estimates. Similarly, these tests have good power, with the t-test proving superior overall. The t-test is also valid for comparing geometric mean average precision (GMAP), exhibiting slightly superior accuracy and slightly inferior power than for MAPcomparison.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.368
Threshold uncertainty score0.170

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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 science0.0000.000
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 head0.218
GPT teacher head0.458
Teacher spread0.241 · 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

Quick stats

Citations25
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAdvanced Statistical Methods and ModelsFrench-language works237,207