MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2164006511 · doi:10.1348/000711008x299742

A comparative study of robust tests for spread: Asymmetric trimming strategies

2008· article· en· W2164006511 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

VenueBritish Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicAdvanced Statistical Methods and Models
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTrimmingEstimatorMathematicsA priori and a posterioriStatisticsRobustness (evolution)Type I and type II errorsLevene's testF-test of equality of variancesVariance (accounting)Analysis of varianceEconometricsAdaptive estimatorStatistical hypothesis testingComputer scienceTest statisticHomogeneity (statistics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We examined 633 procedures that can be used to compare the variability of scores across independent groups. The procedures, except for one, were modifications of the procedures suggested by Levene (1960) and O'Brien (1981). We modified their procedures by substituting robust measures of the typical score and variability, rather than relying on classical estimators. The robust measures that we utilized were either based on a priori or empirically determined symmetric or asymmetric trimming strategies. The Levene-type and O'Brien-type transformed scores were used with either the ANOVA F test, a robust test due to Lee and Fung (1985), or the Welch (1951) test. Based on four measures of robustness, we recommend a Levene-type transformation based upon empirically determined 20% asymmetric trimmed means, involving a particular adaptive estimator, where the transformed scores are then used with the ANOVA F test.

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)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.330
Threshold uncertainty score0.715

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
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 head0.289
GPT teacher head0.491
Teacher spread0.201 · 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