MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Issues in Teaching the Comparison of Variability to Non-Statistics Students

2001· article· en· W2773649145 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 Statistics Education · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistics Education and Methodologies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHomoscedasticityPerspective (graphical)StatisticsStatistics educationMathematics educationPsychologyInclusion (mineral)Computer scienceMathematicsSocial psychologyArtificial intelligenceHeteroscedasticity

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

One of the main themes of statistics courses is to teach about variability, as well as location. This is especially important for non-statistics students, who often overlook variability. We consider particularly the problem of comparing variability among k samples (k > 2) that are not necessarily drawn from Gaussian populations. This can also be viewed as testing for homoskedasticity of samples. We examine tools for this problem from the perspective of their suitability for inclusion in elementary statistics courses for students of non-mathematical subjects. The ideas are illustrated by an example that arose in a student project.Supplemental data for this article can be accessed on the publisher's website.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.024
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.456
Threshold uncertainty score0.984

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.024
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 head0.145
GPT teacher head0.537
Teacher spread0.393 · 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