MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2001724610 · doi:10.1002/env.919

Simple confidence intervals for lognormal means and their differences with environmental applications

2008· article· en· W2001724610 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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueEnvironmetrics · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicSoil Geostatistics and Mapping
Canadian institutionsRobarts Clinical TrialsInstitute for Clinical Evaluative SciencesWestern University
FundersOntario Ministry of Research and InnovationNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsLog-normal distributionConfidence intervalStatisticsCoverage probabilityRobust confidence intervalsConfidence distributionMathematicsSample size determinationSimple (philosophy)Variance (accounting)Confidence regionCDF-based nonparametric confidence intervalInferenceStatistical inferenceComputer scienceArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The lognormal distribution has frequently been applied to approximate environmental data, with inference focusing on arithmetic means. Confidence interval estimation involving lognormal means in small to moderate sample sizes has received much attention over the years without a simple procedure in sight. We therefore propose a closed‐form procedure for constructing confidence intervals for a lognormal mean and a difference between two lognormal means. The advantage of our procedure is that it only requires confidence limits for a normal mean and variance. The results of a numerical study show that our method performs as well as the generalized confidence interval (GCI) approach, which relies completely on computer simulation. Two real datasets are used to illustrate the methodology. Copyright © 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.480
Threshold uncertainty score0.570

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.208
Teacher spread0.189 · 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