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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article investigates the problem whether the difference between two parametric models m1, m2 describing the relation between a response variable and several covariates in two different groups is practically irrelevant, such that inference can be performed on the basis of the pooled sample. Statistical methodology is developed to test the hypotheses H0: d(m1, m2) ⩾ ϵ versus H1: d(m1, m2) < ϵ to demonstrate equivalence between the two regression curves m1, m2 for a prespecified threshold ϵ, where d denotes a distance measuring the distance between m1 and m2. Our approach is based on the asymptotic properties of a suitable estimator d(m^1,m^2) of this distance. To improve the approximation of the nominal level for small sample sizes, a bootstrap test is developed, which addresses the specific form of the interval hypotheses. In particular, data have to be generated under the null hypothesis, which implicitly defines a manifold for the parameter vector. The results are illustrated by means of a simulation study and a data example. It is demonstrated that the new methods substantially improve currently available approaches with respect to power and approximation of the nominal level.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.040 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it