MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2624643432 · doi:10.22237/jmasm/1193889840

A Comparison of Procedures for the Analysis of Multivariate Repeated Measurements

2007· article· en· W2624643432 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

VenueJournal of Modern Applied Statistical Methods · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistical Methods and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of ManitobaUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMathematicsMultivariate statisticsStatisticsCovarianceMultivariate analysis of varianceKronecker productMultivariate analysisSample size determinationMultivariate normal distributionAnalysis of covarianceLikelihood-ratio testRepeated measures designEconometricsKronecker delta

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Three procedures for analyzing within-subjects effects in multivariate repeated measures designs are compared when group covariances are heterogeneous: the multiple regression model (MRM) with a structured covariance, Johansen’s (1980) procedure, and the multivariate Brown and Forsythe (1974) procedure. A preliminary likelihood ratio test of a Kronecker product covariance structure is sensitive to sample size and derivational assumption violations. Error rates of the procedures are generally well-controlled except when the distribution is skewed. The MRM procedure displayed few power advantages over the other procedures.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
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 score0.383
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.324
GPT teacher head0.567
Teacher spread0.243 · 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