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 OpenAlexaff
Jianan Peng, Chu‐In Charles Lee, Lin Liu

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.

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)0.038
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.079
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 score0.038
Threshold uncertainty score0.199

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0380.079
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0040.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.004
Bibliometrics0.0050.005
Science and technology studies0.0020.004
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0040.003
Research integrity0.0030.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0160.003

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

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

Citations1
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCommunication in Statistics- Theory and MethodsSame topicOptimal Experimental Design MethodsFrench-language works237,207