MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2042407801 · doi:10.1081/sac-200033302

A Modified Sign Test for Symmetry

2004· article· en· W2042407801 on OpenAlexaff
Wei-Hou Cheng, N. Balakrishnan

Bibliographic record

VenueCommunications in Statistics - Simulation and Computation · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicHistory and advancements in chemistry
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSign (mathematics)Test (biology)Sign testSymmetry (geometry)PsychologyMathematicsStatisticsGeologyGeometryMathematical analysisPaleontologyWilcoxon signed-rank test

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We propose a new test for symmetry about a known center. The test utilizes information on both absolute ranks and signs of the sample. It is shown by Monte Carlo study to be more powerful than the modified runs test proposed by Modarres and Gastwirth [Modarres, R., Gastwirth, J. L. (1996). A modified runs test for symmetry. Stat. Prob. Lett. 31:107–112] and hence also more powerful than the sign test and Wilcoxon signed rank test against alternatives in the lambda family.

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)0.027
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.178
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.141

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0270.178
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.003
Bibliometrics0.0050.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.005
Scholarly communication0.0040.008
Open science0.0060.005
Research integrity0.0030.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0200.005

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 head0.118
GPT teacher head0.418
Teacher spread0.300 · 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
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

Citations21
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCommunications in Statistics - Simulation and ComputationSame topicHistory and advancements in chemistryFrench-language works237,207