MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2008765054 · doi:10.2307/3315946

Box‐Cox transformations in linear models: Large sample theory and tests of normality

2002· article· en· W2008765054 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
Gemai Chen, Richard Lockhart, Michael A. Stephens

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Statistics · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistical Methods and Inference
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser UniversityUniversity of Calgary
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsNormalityMathematicsAsymptotic distributionEstimatorStatisticsInferencePower transformTransformation (genetics)ResidualAsymptotic analysisLinear modelNormal distributionApplied mathematicsStandard errorSample (material)Statistical inferenceLocal asymptotic normalityEconometricsComputer scienceAlgorithmDiscrete mathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The authors provide a rigorous large sample theory for linear models whose response variable has been subjected to the Box‐Cox transformation. They provide a continuous asymptotic approximation to the distribution of estimators of natural parameters of the model. They show, in particular, that the maximum likelihood estimator of the ratio of slope to residual standard deviation is consistent and relatively stable. The authors further show the importance for inference of normality of the errors and give tests for normality based on the estimated residuals. For non‐normal errors, they give adjustments to the log‐likelihood and to asymptotic standard errors.

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Methods
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Theoretical or conceptualhigh
grokno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Methods
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Theoretical or conceptualhigh
opusno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Methods
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Theoretical or conceptualhigh
models agreeAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

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)0.062
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.333
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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.062
Threshold uncertainty score0.000

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0620.333
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0040.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.009
Scholarly communication0.0040.007
Open science0.0030.004
Research integrity0.0020.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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 head0.110
GPT teacher head0.330
Teacher spread0.219 · 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

Labeled directly by 3 models reading the full record.

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

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

Citations44
Published2002
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of StatisticsSame topicStatistical Methods and InferenceFrench-language works237,207