Is the Overtime Period in an NHL Game Long Enough? An Example for Teaching Estimation and Hypothesis Testing in the Presence of Censored Data
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This note outlines an approach for introducing students to estimation and hypothesis testing with censored data using a National Hockey League example. We consider the effects of extending the overtime period in a regular season game beyond its current length of five minutes. The rationale for this change is that more games would be decided on the basis of four-on-four play rather than on a shootout. In order to make this assessment, we must estimate the parameter of the exponential distribution. We used data from the 281 NHL games that went to overtime during the 2005–2006 season. Of these, more than half went to a shootout and hence these potential observations of the time to a goal are censored and must be taken into account in the estimation. For more advanced students, we offer the mechanics of a likelihood ratio test to confirm that four-on-four play in overtime is a much different game than five-on-five in regulation play.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it