MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2084811700 · doi:10.1002/cjs.10069

Testing for equivalence of variances using Hartley's ratio

2010· article· en· W2084811700 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Jesse Frey

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Statistics · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicOptimal Experimental Design Methods
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEquivalence (formal languages)MathematicsStatisticsEconometricsDiscrete mathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Hartley's test for homogeneity of k normal‐distribution variances is based on the ratio between the maximum sample variance and the minimum sample variance. In this paper, the author uses the same statistic to test for equivalence of k variances. Equivalence is defined in terms of the ratio between the maximum and minimum population variances, and one concludes equivalence when Hartley's ratio is small. Exact critical values for this test are obtained by using an integral expression for the power function and some theoretical results about the power function. These exact critical values are available both when sample sizes are equal and when sample sizes are unequal. One related result in the paper is that Hartley's test for homogeneity of variances is no longer unbiased when the sample sizes are unequal. The Canadian Journal of Statistics 38: 647–664; 2010 © 2010 Statistical Society of Canada

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)0.061
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.397
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.061
Threshold uncertainty score0.324

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0610.397
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.003
Bibliometrics0.0050.004
Science and technology studies0.0020.007
Scholarly communication0.0040.006
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0140.001

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 head0.324
GPT teacher head0.455
Teacher spread0.131 · 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

Citations2
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of StatisticsSame topicOptimal Experimental Design MethodsFrench-language works237,207