MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2068357220 · doi:10.1080/03610926.2011.577548

Test of Normality Against Generalized Exponential Power Alternatives

2012· article· en· W2068357220 on OpenAlexafffund
Alain Desgagné, Pierre Lafaye de Micheaux, Alexandre Leblanc

Bibliographic record

VenueCommunication in Statistics- Theory and Methods · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistical Distribution Estimation and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalUniversity of ManitobaUniversité du Québec à Montréal
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaUniversité de Montréal
KeywordsNormalityMathematicsNormality testTest statisticExponential functionExponential familyStatisticLogarithmApplied mathematicsMonte Carlo methodStatisticsStatistical hypothesis testingMathematical analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The family of symmetric generalized exponential power (GEP) densities offers a wide range of tail behaviors, which may be exponential, polynomial, and/or logarithmic. In this article, a test of normality based on Rao's score statistic and this family of GEP alternatives is proposed. This test is tailored to detect departures from normality in the tails of the distribution. The main interest of this approach is that it provides a test with a large family of symmetric alternatives having non-normal tails. In addition, the test's statistic consists of a combination of three quantities that can be interpreted as new measures of tail thickness. In a Monte-Carlo simulation study, the proposed test is shown to perform well in terms of power when compared to its competitors.

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)0.017
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.140
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: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.090

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0170.140
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.004
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.102
GPT teacher head0.490
Teacher spread0.388 · 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

Citations7
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCommunication in Statistics- Theory and MethodsSame topicStatistical Distribution Estimation and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207