A review of the Behrens-Fisher problem and some of its analogs: Does the same size fit all?
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<p>The traditional Behrens–Fisher (B-F) problem is to test the equality of the means µ<sub>1</sub> and µ<sub>2</sub> of two normal populations using two independent samples, when the quotient of the population variances is unknown. Welch [43] developed a frequentist approximate solution using a fractional number of degrees of freedom t-distribution. We make a a comprehensive review of the existing procedures, propose new procedures, evaluate these for size and power, and make recommendation for the B-F and its analogous problems for non-normal populations. On the other hand, we investigate and answer a question: does the same size fit all all, i.e. is the t-test with Welch’s degree of freedom correction robust enough for the B-F problem analogs, and what sample size is appropriate to use a normal approximation to the Welch statistic.</p>
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it