MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3082480389 · doi:10.1080/03610918.2020.1812649

Confidence intervals for the ratio of medians of two independent log-normal distributions

2020· article· en· W3082480389 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueCommunications in Statistics - Simulation and Computation · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicAdvanced Statistical Methods and Models
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Regina
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConfidence intervalCDF-based nonparametric confidence intervalStatisticsRobust confidence intervalsMathematicsCoverage probabilityCredible intervalMonte Carlo methodBinomial proportion confidence intervalConfidence distributionMedianVariance (accounting)Geometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We focus on the construction of confidence intervals for the ratios of medians of two independent, log-normal distributions based on the normal approximation (NA) approach, the method of variance estimate recovery (MOVER), and the generalized confidence interval (GCI) approach. We also compare the performance of the three confidence intervals in terms of the coverage probabilities, and average lengths, using Monte Carlo simulations. The results show that the GCI confidence interval is generally preferred in terms of coverage probabilities; however, the average length for the GCI is always wider than for other approaches. The NA and MOVER approaches could be recommended on the basis of the specific values of μi,σi2 and/or sample sizes. The confidence intervals are illustrated using real data examples.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.583
Threshold uncertainty score0.327

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.370
GPT teacher head0.543
Teacher spread0.173 · 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