MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2611369009

One-Sample Location Tests for Multilevel Data

2006· article· en· W2611369009 on OpenAlexaff
Denis Larocque, Jaakko Nevalainen, Hannu Oja

Bibliographic record

VenueLes Cahiers du GERAD · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistical Methods and Inference
Canadian institutionsHEC Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSign testWilcoxon signed-rank testStatistical hypothesis testingStatisticsAsymptotic distributionMathematicsNull hypothesisSign (mathematics)Rank (graph theory)Sample (material)Null (SQL)Computer scienceData miningEstimatorCombinatorics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract In this paper, we consider testing the location parameter with multilevel (or hierarchical) data. A general family of weighted test statistics is introduced. This family includes extensions to the case of multilevel data of familiar procedures like the t, the sign and the Wilcoxon signed-rank tests. Under mild assumptions, the test statistics have a null limiting normal distribution which facilitates their use. An investigation of the relative merits of selected members of the family of tests is achieved theoretically by deriving their asymptotic relative efficiency (ARE) and empirically via a simulation study. It is shown that the performance of a test depends on the clusters configurations and on the intracluster correlations. Explicit formulas for optimal weights and a discussion of the impact of omitting a level are provided for 2 and 3-level data. It is shown that using appropriate weights can greatly improve the performance of the tests. Finally, the use of the new tests is illustrated with a real data example.

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 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)0.007
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 score0.080
Threshold uncertainty score0.851

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.007
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 head0.202
GPT teacher head0.393
Teacher spread0.191 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations0
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLes Cahiers du GERADSame topicStatistical Methods and InferenceFrench-language works237,207