A Note on Testing Homogeneity of Several Exponential Location Parameters
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this article, the problems of testing homogeneity of several exponential location parameters against simple and tree ordered alternatives are considered separately. Test procedures for both the alternatives are proposed using restricted maximum likelihood estimators (RMLE) of exponential location parameters under the respective orderings. Critical constants for the implementation of the proposed procedures are tabulated. Power comparison of the proposed test procedure under the simple ordered alternative with the procedure of Chen (1982 Chen , H. J. ( 1982 ). A new range statistic for comparisons of several exponential location parameters . Biometrika 69 ( 1 ): 257 – 260 .[Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]) and of Dhawan and Gill (1999 Dhawan , A. K. , Gill , A. N. ( 1999 ). A one-sided test for testing homogeneity of scale parameters against ordered alternative . Communication in Statistics—Theory and Methods 28 ( 10 ): 2417 – 2439 .[Taylor & Francis Online], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]) is carried out using Monte-Carlo simulation.
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 | 0.141 | 0.461 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".