MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2779683126 · doi:10.12697/acutm.2017.21.14

Tests of exponentiality against some parametric over/under-dispersed life time models

2017· article· en· W2779683126 on OpenAlexaff
Rajibul Mian, S. R. Paul

Bibliographic record

VenueActa et Commentationes Universitatis Tartuensis de Mathematica · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicGlobal Health Care Issues
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWeibull distributionStatisticGoodness of fitStatisticsExponential familyGamma distributionMathematicsNatural exponential familyExponential functionExponential distributionParametric statisticsTest statisticLikelihood-ratio testDispersion (optics)Statistical hypothesis testingPhysicsMathematical analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We develop tests of goodness of fit of the exponential model against some over/under dispersion family of distributions. In particular, we develop 3 score test statistics and 3 likelihood ratio statistics. These are (S1, L1), (S2, L2), and (S3, L3) based on a general over-dispersed family of distributions, two specic over/under dispersed exponential models, namely, the gamma and the Weibull distributions, respectively. A simulation study shows that the statistics S3 and L3 have best overall performance, in terms of both, level and power. However, the statistic L3 can be liberal in some instances and it needs the maximum likelihood estimates of the parameters of the Weibull distribution as opposed to the statistic S3 which is very simple to use. So, our recommendation is to use the statistic S3 to test the fit of an exponential distribution over any over/under-dispersed exponential distribution.

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)0.037
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.222
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
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 score0.037
Threshold uncertainty score0.195

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0370.222
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.005
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.097
GPT teacher head0.427
Teacher spread0.330 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueActa et Commentationes Universitatis Tartuensis de MathematicaSame topicGlobal Health Care IssuesFrench-language works237,207