Permutation tests under a rotating sampling plan with clustered data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The distribution of lumber strength of any grade may evolve, for example, due to climate change, forest fire, changes in processing methods, and other factors. So, in North America the forest products industry monitors the evolution of their means, percentiles, or other parameters to ensure the wood products meet the industrial standard. For administrative convenience and informativeness, one may adopt a rotating sampling plan by sampling 36 mills in the initial occasion and having six of them replaced in each successive occasion for the next five occasions. The strength data on a specified number, commonly 10 pieces of lumbers from each sampled mills, are obtained. Under such rotating plans the observations on pieces from the same mill are correlated, and the observations on samples from the same mill taken on different occasions are also correlated. Ignoring these correlations may lead to invalid inference procedures. Yet accommodating a cluster structure in parametric models is difficult and entails a high level of misspecification risk. In this paper we explore symmetry in the clustered data collected via a rotating sampling plan to develop a permutation scheme for testing various hypotheses of interest. We also introduce a semiparametric density ratio model to link the distributions of the response variable over time. The combination retains the validity of the inference methods while extracting maximum information from the sampling plan. A simulation study indicates that the proposed permutation tests firmly control the type I error whether or not the data are clustered. The use of the density ratio model improves the power of the tests. We also apply the proposed tests to data from the motivating application. The proposed permutation tests effectively address many real-world issues with trust worth inference conclusions.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.095 | 0.322 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".