MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3206266088 · doi:10.1002/cjs.11662

Testing normality of spatially indexed functional data

2021· article· en· W3206266088 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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Statistics · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicSpatial and Panel Data Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNormalityFunctional data analysisNormality testStatisticsGaussianFunctional principal component analysisPrincipal component analysisMathematicsComputer scienceEconometricsStatistical hypothesis testingPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We develop a test of normality for spatially indexed functions. The assumption of normality is common in spatial statistics, yet no significance tests, or other means of assessment, have been available for functional data. This article aims at filling this gap in the case of functional observations on a spatial grid. Our test compares the moments of the spatial (frequency domain) principal component scores to those of a suitable Gaussian distribution. Critical values can be readily obtained from a chi‐squared distribution. We provide rigorous theoretical justification for a broad class of weakly stationary functional random fields. We perform simulation studies to assess the power of the test against various alternatives. An application to surface incoming shortwave radiation illustrates the practical value of this procedure.

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)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.845
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
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)0.0020.000

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 head0.212
GPT teacher head0.229
Teacher spread0.017 · 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