Inference Procedures on the Ratio of Modified Generalized Poisson Distribution Means: Applications to RNA_SEQ Data
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
The Poisson and the Negative Binomial distributions are commonly used as analytic tools to model count data. The Poisson is characterized by the equality of mean and variance whereas the Negative Binomial has a variance larger than the mean and therefore is appropriate to model over-dispersed count data. The Generalized Poisson Distribution is becoming a popular alternative to the Negative Binomial. We have considered inference procedures on a modified form of this distribution when two samples are available from two independent populations and the target effect size of interest is the ratio of the two population means. The statistical objective is to construct confidence limits on the ratio. We first test the presence of over dispersion and derive several estimators in the single sample situation. When two samples are available, our interest is focused on the estimation of an effect size measured by the ratio of the respective population means. We have compared two methods; namely the Fieller’s and the delta methods in terms of coverage probabilities. We have illustrated the methodologies on published genomic datasets.
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 | 0.004 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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