MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2093651162 · doi:10.1080/03610920008832539

A multiple comparisons procedure for detecting differences between treatments and a control in two-factor experiments

2000· article· en· W2093651162 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.

Bibliographic record

VenueCommunication in Statistics- Theory and Methods · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicOptimal Experimental Design Methods
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStatisticsConfidence intervalStatisticTest (biology)MathematicsControl (management)Test statisticMultiple comparisons problemFactor (programming language)Computer scienceStatistical hypothesis testingArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In many experiments researchers are interested in comparing several treat¬ment means with a control mean. Their primary interest is to determine whether any treatments are significantly better than the control Several test procedures have been proposed in the literature, but only few of them can pro¬vide simultaneous confidence lower bounds. A new test statistic is proposed to compare treatment means with a control mean in two-factor experiments. Some upper percentage points are tabulated. It yields sharp simultaneous confidence lower bounds for the differences of such means. The new test is forresponding author.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.736
Threshold uncertainty score0.696

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.225
GPT teacher head0.545
Teacher spread0.321 · 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