MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2676863892 · doi:10.22237/jmasm/1241137800

A Heteroscedastic, Rank-Based Approach for Analyzing 2 x 2 Independent Groups Designs

2009· article· en· W2676863892 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 · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicOptimal Experimental Design Methods
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMathematicsStatisticsType I and type II errorsHeteroscedasticityNormalityStatisticEconometricsHomogeneity (statistics)Monte Carlo methodRank (graph theory)Analysis of varianceVariance (accounting)Truncated meanRepeated measures designCombinatorics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The ANOVA F is a widely used statistic in psychological research despite its shortcomings when the assumptions of normality and variance heterogeneity are violated. A Monte Carlo investigation compared Type I error and power rates of the ANOVA F, Alexander-Govern with trimmed means and Johnson transformation, Welch-James with trimmed means and Johnson Transformation, Welch with trimmed means, and Welch on ranked data using Johansen’s interaction procedure. Results suggest that the ANOVA F is not appropriate when assumptions of normality and variance homogeneity are violated, and that the Welch/Johansen on ranks offers the best balance of empirical Type I error control and statistical power under these conditions.

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)0.022
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.667
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0220.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.223
GPT teacher head0.499
Teacher spread0.276 · 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