A comparison of the power of the <i>t</i> test, Mann-Kendall and bootstrap tests for trend detection / Une comparaison de la puissance des tests <i>t</i> de Student, de Mann-Kendall et du bootstrap pour la détection de tendance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Monte Carlo simulation is applied to compare the power of the statistical tests: the parametric t test, the non-parametric Mann-Kendall (MK), bootstrap-based slope (BS-slope), and bootstrap-based MK (BS-MK) tests to assess the significance of monotonic (linear and nonlinear) trends. Simulation results indicate that (a) the t test and the BS-slope test, which are slope-based tests, have the same power; (b) the MK and BS-based MK tests, which are rank-based tests, have the same power; (c) for normally-distributed data, the power of the slope-based tests is slightly higher than that of the rank-based tests; and (d) for non-normally distributed series such as time series with the Pearson type III (P3), Gumbel, extreme value type II (EV2), or Weibull distributions, the power of the rank-based tests is higher than that of the slope-based tests. The power of the tests is slightly sensitive to the shape of trend. Practical assessment of the significance of trends in the annual maximum daily flows of 30 Canadian pristine river basins demonstrates a similar tendency to that obtained in the simulation studies.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.044 | 0.164 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".