MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2069842242 · doi:10.1081/sac-100107787

A SADDLEPOINT APPROXIMATION TO THE DISTRIBUTION FUNCTION OF THE ANDERSON-DARLING TEST STATISTIC

2001· article· en· W2069842242 on OpenAlexaff
David E. A. Giles

Bibliographic record

VenueCommunications in Statistics - Simulation and Computation · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicScientific Research and Discoveries
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAnderson–Darling testStatisticMathematicsStatisticsTest statisticEconometricsApplied mathematicsStatistical hypothesis testing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Anderson-Darling goodness-of-fit test has a highly skewed and non-standard limit distribution. Various attempts have been made to tabulate the associated critical points, using both theoretical approximations and simulation methods. We show that a standard saddlepoint approximation performs well in both tails of the distribution. It is markedly superior to other theoretical approximations in the lower tail of the distribution.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.048
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.049

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.048
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
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 head0.100
GPT teacher head0.401
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
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations34
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCommunications in Statistics - Simulation and ComputationSame topicScientific Research and DiscoveriesFrench-language works237,207