MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2736953531 · doi:10.22237/jmasm/1478001780

Some Remarks on Rao and Lovric's 'Testing the Point Null Hypothesis of a Normal Mean and the Truth: 21st Century Perspective'

2016· article· en· W2736953531 on OpenAlexaff
Bruce D. Zumbo, Edward Kroc

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Modern Applied Statistical Methods · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicBayesian Modeling and Causal Inference
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMathematicsNull hypothesisPerspective (graphical)Null (SQL)EconometricsMathematical economicsStatisticsPoint (geometry)Statistical hypothesis testingZero (linguistics)Calculus (dental)EpistemologyPhilosophyLinguisticsComputer scienceGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Although we have much to agree with in Rao and Lovric’s important discussion of the test of point null hypotheses, it stirred us to provide a way out of their apparent Zero probability paradox and cast the Hodges-Lehmann paradigm from a Serlin-Lapsley approach. We close our remarks with an eye toward a broad perspective.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.039
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.098
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.961
Threshold uncertainty score0.206

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0390.098
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0040.026
Scholarly communication0.0040.010
Open science0.0050.003
Research integrity0.0100.018
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.002

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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.314
Teacher spread0.267 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
DomainMethods
GenreCommentary

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

Citations4
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Modern Applied Statistical MethodsSame topicBayesian Modeling and Causal InferenceFrench-language works237,207