MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2343847883 · doi:10.1080/03610926.2014.897137

A note on a family of criteria for evaluating test statistics

2016· article· en· W2343847883 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.

Bibliographic record

VenueCommunication in Statistics- Theory and Methods · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIncome, Poverty, and Inequality
Canadian institutionsSt. Francis Xavier UniversityUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMathematicsStatisticsDominance (genetics)Null hypothesisPower indexPopulationStatistical hypothesis testingEconometricsMathematical economicsDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In noting that the usual criteria for choosing an optimal test, Uniform Power and Local Power are at opposite ends of a spectrum of dominance criteria, a complete “Power Dominance” family of criteria for classifying and choosing optimal tests on the basis of their power characteristics is identified, wherein successive orders of dominance attach increasing weight to power close to the null hypothesis. Indices of the extent to which a preferred test has superior power characteristics over other members in its class, and an index of the proximity of a test to the envelope function of alternative tests are also provided. The ideas are exemplified using various optimal test statistics for Normal and Laplace population distributions.

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)0.018
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.030
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
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 score0.267
Threshold uncertainty score0.978

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0180.030
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.186
GPT teacher head0.553
Teacher spread0.366 · 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