MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2340675989 · doi:10.1002/cjs.11274

Sample‐size calculation for tests of homogeneity

2016· article· en· W2340675989 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.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Statistics · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicBayesian Methods and Mixture Models
Canadian institutionsUniversity of WaterlooUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHomogeneity (statistics)Sample size determinationParametric statisticsStatisticsEconometricsStatistical hypothesis testingParametric modelComputer scienceLimitingSimple (philosophy)MathematicsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Mixture models are widely used to explain excessive variation in observations that is not captured by standard parametric models, and they lead to suggestive latent structures. The hypothetical latent structure often needs critical examination based on experimental data. It is therefore important to know the sample size needed to ensure a reasonable chance of success. We investigate this issue for the EM‐test and the test. They are shown to be asymptotically equivalent and have simple limiting distributions under two sets of local alternatives for commonly used mixture models. We obtain a simple sample‐size formula and an associated simulation‐based calibration procedure, and we demonstrate via data examples and simulation studies that they provide useful guidance for several common mixture models. The Canadian Journal of Statistics 44: 82–101; 2016 © 2016 Statistical Society of Canada

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.475
Threshold uncertainty score0.217

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.275
Teacher spread0.246 · 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