A comparative study of robust tests for spread: Asymmetric trimming strategies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
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 | 0.191 | 0.652 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".