MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2086665942 · doi:10.1080/10485250310001622668

Nonparametric testing for a monotone hazard function via normalized spacings

2004· article· en· W2086665942 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of nonparametric statistics · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistical Distribution Estimation and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsNonparametric statisticsTest statisticNull hypothesisMonotone polygonMathematicsEconometricsStatistical hypothesis testingStatisticsTest (biology)Censoring (clinical trials)Monotonic function

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We study the problem of testing whether a hazard function is monotonic or not. The proposed test statistics, a global test and four localized tests, are all based on normalized spacings. The global test is in fact just the test statistic [Proschan, F. and Pyke, R. (1967). Tests for monotone failure rate. Fifth Berkeley Symposium, 3, 293-313], introduced for testing a constant hazard function versus a nondecreasing nonconstant hazard function. This global test is powerful for detecting global departures of the null hypothesis, but lacks power when there are local departures from the null hypothesis. By localizing the global test, we obtain tests that respond to this drawback. We also show how the testing procedures can be used when dealing with Type II censored data. We evaluate the performance of the test statistics via simulation studies and illustrate them on some data sets.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.027
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow)
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 score0.381
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.027
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.079
GPT teacher head0.362
Teacher spread0.282 · 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