MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3147609845 · doi:10.1002/cjs.11611

A Jackknife empirical likelihood approach for<i>K</i>‐sample Tests

2021· article· en· W3147609845 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Yongli Sang, Xin Dang, Yichuan Zhao

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Statistics · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicAdvanced Statistical Methods and Models
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersDivision of Mathematical SciencesNational Security Agency
KeywordsJackknife resamplingCategorical variableEmpirical likelihoodMathematicsStatisticsIndependence (probability theory)EconometricsDegrees of freedom (physics and chemistry)ResamplingCorrelationChi-square testParametric statisticsConfidence interval

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The categorical Gini correlation is an alternative measure of dependence between categorical and numerical variables, which characterizes the independence of the variables. A non‐parametric test based on the categorical Gini correlation for the equality ofKdistributions is developed. By applying the jackknife empirical likelihood approach, the standard limiting chi‐squared distribution with degrees of freedom ofK − 1 is established and is used to determine the critical value andp‐value of the test. Simulation studies show that the proposed method is competitive with existing methods in terms of power of the tests in most cases. The proposed method is illustrated in an application on a real dataset.

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)0.043
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.183
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 score0.043
Threshold uncertainty score0.229

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0430.183
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0050.004
Science and technology studies0.0020.004
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0060.003
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.002

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 head0.171
GPT teacher head0.408
Teacher spread0.237 · 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

Citations11
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of StatisticsSame topicAdvanced Statistical Methods and ModelsFrench-language works237,207