Small Sample Tests for Shape Parameters of Gamma Distributions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The introduction of shape parameters into statistical distributions provided flexible models that produced better fit to experimental data. The Weibull and gamma families are prime examples wherein shape parameters produce more reliable statistical models than standard exponential models in lifetime studies. In the presence of many independent gamma populations, one may test equality (or homogeneity) of shape parameters. In this article, we develop two tests for testing shape parameters of gamma distributions using chi-square distributions, stochastic majorization, and Schur convexity. The first one tests hypotheses on the shape parameter of a single gamma distribution. We numerically examine the performance of this test and find that it controls Type I error rate for small samples. To compare shape parameters of a set of independent gamma populations, we develop a test that is unbiased in the sense of Schur convexity. These tests are motivated by the need to have simple, easy to use tests and accurate procedures in case of small samples. We illustrate the new tests using three real datasets taken from engineering and environmental science. In addition, we investigate the Bayes’ factor in this context and conclude that for small samples, the frequentist approach performs better than the Bayesian approach.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.064 | 0.389 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".