Comparing the "typical score" across independent groups based on different criteria for trimming
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Nonnormality and variance heterogeneity affect the validity of the traditional tests for treatment group equality (e.g. ANOVA F-test and t-test), particularly when group sizes are unequal. Adopting trimmed means instead of the usual least squares estimator has been shown to be mostly affective in combating the deleterious effects of nonnormality. There are, however, practical concerns regarding trimmed means, such as the predetermined amount of symmetric trimming that is typically used. Wilcox and Keselman proposed the Modified One- Step M-estimator (MOM) which empirically determines the amount of trimming. Othman et al. found that when this estimator is used with Schrader and Hettmansperger's H statistic, rates of Type I error were well controlled even though data were nonnormal in form. In this paper, we modified the criterion for choosing the sample values for MOM by replacing the default scale estimator, MADn, with two robust scale estimators, Sn and Tn , suggested by Rousseeuw and Croux (1993). To study the robustness of the modified methods, conditions that are known to negatively affect rates of Type I error were manipulated. As well, a bootstrap method was used to generate a better approximate sampling distribution since the null distribution of MOM-H is intractable. These modified methods resulted in better Type I error control especially when data were extremely skewed.
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 | 0.089 | 0.312 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".