<scp>ANOVA</scp> and the variance homogeneity assumption: Exploring a better gatekeeper
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Valid use of the traditional independent samples ANOVA procedure requires that the population variances are equal. Previous research has investigated whether variance homogeneity tests, such as Levene's test, are satisfactory as gatekeepers for identifying when to use or not to use the ANOVA procedure. This research focuses on a novel homogeneity of variance test that incorporates an equivalence testing approach. Instead of testing the null hypothesis that the variances are equal against an alternative hypothesis that the variances are not equal, the equivalence-based test evaluates the null hypothesis that the difference in the variances falls outside or on the border of a predetermined interval against an alternative hypothesis that the difference in the variances falls within the predetermined interval. Thus, with the equivalence-based procedure, the alternative hypothesis is aligned with the research hypothesis (variance equality). A simulation study demonstrated that the equivalence-based test of population variance homogeneity is a better gatekeeper for the ANOVA than traditional homogeneity of variance tests.
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 | 0.119 | 0.391 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| 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".