MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2037898831 · doi:10.1080/03610918.2011.594533

Inferences on the Among-Group Variance Component in Unbalanced Heteroscedastic One-Fold Nested Design

2011· article· en· W2037898831 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.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueCommunications in Statistics - Simulation and Computation · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicOptimal Experimental Design Methods
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMinistère de l’Éducation, Gouvernement de l’OntarioNatural Science Foundation of Zhejiang ProvinceNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsHeteroscedasticityVariance componentsConfidence intervalVariance (accounting)Component (thermodynamics)StatisticsComputer scienceGroup (periodic table)EconometricsMathematicsEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article studies the hypothesis testing and interval estimation for the among-group variance component in unbalanced heteroscedastic one-fold nested design. Based on the concepts of generalized p-value and generalized confidence interval, tests and confidence intervals for the among-group variance component are developed. Furthermore, some simulation results are presented to compare the performance of the proposed approach with those of existing approaches. It is found that the proposed approach and one of the existing approaches can maintain the nominal confidence level across a wide array of scenarios, and therefore are recommended to use in practical problems. Finally, a real example is illustrated.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.655
Threshold uncertainty score0.570

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.611
GPT teacher head0.525
Teacher spread0.086 · 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