Theoretical considerations when simulating data from the <i>g</i> ‐and‐ <i>h</i> family of distributions
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 g-and-h family of distributions is a computationally efficient, flexible option to model and simulate non-normal data. In spite of its popularity, there are several theoretical aspects of these distributions that need special consideration when they are used. In this paper some of these aspects are explored. In particular, through mathematical analysis it is shown that a popular multivariate generalization of the g-and-h distribution may result in marginal distributions which are no longer g-and-h distributed, that more than one set of (g,h) parameters can correspond to the same values of population skewness and excess kurtosis, and that multivariate generalizations of g-and-h distributions available in the literature are special cases of Gaussian copula distributions. A small-scale simulation is also used to demonstrate how simulation conclusions can change when different (g,h) parameters are used to simulate data, even if they imply the same population values of skewness and excess kurtosis.
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 | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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