MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W307107294 · doi:10.22237/jmasm/1177992660

Tests for Treatment Group Equality When Data are Nonnormal and Heteroscedastic

2007· article· en· W307107294 on OpenAlexaff
Robert A. Cribbie, Rand R. Wilcox, Carmen Bewell, H. J. Keselman

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Modern Applied Statistical Methods · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicAdvanced Causal Inference Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of ManitobaYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHeteroscedasticityMathematicsNonparametric statisticsStatisticsType I and type II errorsEconometricsMonte Carlo methodGroup (periodic table)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Several tests for group mean equality have been suggested for analyzing nonnormal and heteroscedastic data. A Monte Carlo study compared the Welch tests on ranked data and heterogeneous, nonparametric statistics with previously recommended procedures. Type I error rates for the Welch tests on ranks and the heterogeneous, nonparametric statistics were well controlled with a slight power advantage for the Welch tests on ranks.

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)0.107
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.417
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 score0.107
Threshold uncertainty score0.566

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1070.417
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.004
Bibliometrics0.0030.005
Science and technology studies0.0020.005
Scholarly communication0.0020.004
Open science0.0040.003
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0200.001

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 head0.493
GPT teacher head0.573
Teacher spread0.080 · 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

Citations53
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Modern Applied Statistical MethodsSame topicAdvanced Causal Inference TechniquesFrench-language works237,207