MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Increased Power with Modified Forms of the Levene (Med) Test for Heterogeneity of Variance

2000· article· en· W2044118951 on OpenAlexaff
W. G. S. Hines, R. J. O’Hara Hines

Bibliographic record

VenueBiometrics · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicAdvanced Statistical Methods and Models
Canadian institutionsUniversity of WaterlooUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVariance (accounting)Levene's testNoticeStatisticsEconometricsF-test of equality of variancesAnalysis of varianceMathematicsTest (biology)Power (physics)Linear modelComputer scienceStatistical hypothesis testingEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

While the conventional Levene (Med) test is a widely used and robust test for detecting heterogeneity of variance, it does not take notice of either the linear dependencies among the residuals involved or the possibility of a mean (or median)-variance relationship. This paper explores the substantial improvements in power possible by investigating the benefits both of removing such linear dependencies (structural zeros) and of modeling (even roughly) such relationships.

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)0.095
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.375
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.095
Threshold uncertainty score0.502

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0950.375
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.004
Bibliometrics0.0030.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.005
Scholarly communication0.0040.008
Open science0.0040.005
Research integrity0.0040.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.002

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 head0.114
GPT teacher head0.383
Teacher spread0.269 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations54
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBiometricsSame topicAdvanced Statistical Methods and ModelsFrench-language works237,207