MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2091541131 · doi:10.2307/3316047

The behrens‐fisher problem revisited: A bayes‐frequentist synthesis

2001· article· en· W2091541131 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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Statistics · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistical Methods and Bayesian Inference
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Science Foundation
KeywordsFrequentist inferenceCredible intervalMathematicsCoverage probabilityConfidence intervalStatisticsInterval (graph theory)Bayes' theoremFrequentist probabilityBinomial proportion confidence intervalInterval estimationStatistical inferenceInferenceFisher informationBayesian probabilityConfidence distributionEconometricsBayesian inferenceComputer scienceCombinatoricsArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The Behrens‐Fisher problem concerns the inference for the difference between the means of two normal populations whose ratio of variances is unknown. In this situation, Fisher's fiducial interval differs markedly from the Neyman‐Pearson confidence interval. A prior proposed by Jeffreys leads to a credible interval that is equivalent to Fisher's solution but it carries a different interpretation. The authors propose an alternative prior leading to a credible interval whose asymptotic coverage probability matches the frequentist coverage probability more accurately than the interval of Jeffreys. Their simulation results indicate excellent matching even in small samples.

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)0.008
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
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 score0.160
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.306
Teacher spread0.261 · 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