MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2967275303 · doi:10.1080/02664763.2019.1652254

EM-test for homogeneity in a two-sample problem with a mixture structure

2019· article· en· W2967275303 on OpenAlexaff
Guanfu Liu, Yuejiao Fu, Jianjun Zhang, Xiaolong Pu, Bo-Ying Wang

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Applied Statistics · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistical Distribution Estimation and Applications
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHomogeneity (statistics)StatisticsSample size determinationMathematicsNull hypothesisSample (material)Computer scienceChemistryChromatography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In many applications such as case-control studies with contaminated controls, or the test of a treatment effect in the presence of nonresponders in biological experiments or clinical trials, a two-sample problem with one of the samples having a mixture structure often arises. Due to the importance and wide applications of scale mixtures and location mixtures, we consider in this paper the case that the component densities differ only in scale parameters and the case that the component densities differ only in location parameters, and further construct an EM-test for the two-sample problem under each case. We show that both the EM-tests possess a chi-squared null limiting distribution. The local power analysis and sample size calculations are also investigated. Finally, the simulation studies and real data analysis demonstrate that the proposed EM-tests have better performance than the existing methods.

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)0.050
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.132
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: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.050
Threshold uncertainty score0.266

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0500.132
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.004
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.005
Scholarly communication0.0020.005
Open science0.0040.004
Research integrity0.0040.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.329
Teacher spread0.308 · 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

Citations2
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Applied StatisticsSame topicStatistical Distribution Estimation and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207