MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

ASYMPTOTIC EFFICIENCY OF THE BLEST‐TYPE TESTS FOR INDEPENDENCE

2008· article· en· W2006585771 on OpenAlexaff
Natalia Stepanova, Shu Wang

Bibliographic record

VenueAustralian & New Zealand Journal of Statistics · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicAdvanced Statistical Methods and Models
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMathematicsIndependence (probability theory)Rank (graph theory)StatisticsRank correlationMeasure (data warehouse)EfficiencyType (biology)Parametric statisticsCorrelation coefficientEconometricsCombinatoricsData mining

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Summary Blest (2000, Aust. N. Z. J. Stat.42, 101–111) proposed a new measure of rank correlation that is sensitive to discrepancies in the small ranks. This paper investigates the efficiency properties of non‐parametric tests for independence based on Blest's correlation coefficient and its modifications. Pitman efficiency comparisons are made with analogous tests existing in the literature. Conditions for Pitman optimality of the Blest‐type tests are established.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.058
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.286
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.058
Threshold uncertainty score0.304

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0580.286
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.006
Scholarly communication0.0020.004
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.146
GPT teacher head0.408
Teacher spread0.262 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAustralian & New Zealand Journal of StatisticsSame topicAdvanced Statistical Methods and ModelsFrench-language works237,207