MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2123033778 · doi:10.1177/0962280210383082

Closed-form confidence intervals for functions of the normal mean and standard deviation

2010· article· en· W2123033778 on OpenAlexafffund
Allan Donner, Guangyong Zou

Bibliographic record

VenueStatistical Methods in Medical Research · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicReliability and Agreement in Measurement
Canadian institutionsRobarts Clinical TrialsWestern University
FundersOntario Ministry of Research and InnovationNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsStandard deviationConfidence intervalPercentileMathematicsStatisticsCoefficient of variationRobust confidence intervalsNormal distributionGeometric standard deviationStandard errorCDF-based nonparametric confidence intervalVariance (accounting)Mean differenceRange (aeronautics)Limits of agreementRelative standard deviationMedicineDetection limitNuclear medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Confidence interval methods for a normal mean and standard deviation are well known and simple to apply. However, the same cannot be said for important functions of these parameters. These functions include the normal distribution percentiles, the Bland-Altman limits of agreement, the coefficient of variation and Cohen's effect size. We present a simple approach to this problem by using variance estimates recovered from confidence limits computed for the mean and standard deviation separately. All resulting confidence intervals have closed forms. Simulation results demonstrate that this approach performs very well for limits of agreement, coefficients of variation and their differences.

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)0.069
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.476
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: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.069
Threshold uncertainty score0.367

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0690.476
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.003
Bibliometrics0.0090.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.004
Scholarly communication0.0060.009
Open science0.0060.004
Research integrity0.0040.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.003

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 head0.355
GPT teacher head0.613
Teacher spread0.258 · 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

Citations172
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStatistical Methods in Medical ResearchSame topicReliability and Agreement in MeasurementFrench-language works237,207