MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2187335251

Comparing the Means of Two Log-Normal Distributions: A Likelihood Approach

2014· article· en· W2187335251 on OpenAlexaff
Lai Jiang, Marie Rekkas, Augustine Wong

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Statistical and Econometric Methods · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicDiverse Scientific and Engineering Research
Canadian institutionsYork UniversitySimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMathematicsStatisticsNormal distributionLog-normal distributionAlgorithmApplied mathematics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The log-normal distribution is one of the most common distributions used for modeling skewed and positive data. In recent years, various methods for comparing the means of two independent log-normal distributions have been developed. In this paper a higher-order likelihood based method is proposed. The method is applied to two real-life examples and simulation studies are used compare the accuracy of the proposed method to some existing methods.

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)0.015
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.071
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.079

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.071
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0050.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.005
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.046
GPT teacher head0.315
Teacher spread0.270 · 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

Citations3
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Statistical and Econometric MethodsSame topicDiverse Scientific and Engineering ResearchFrench-language works237,207