Bibliographic record
Abstract
One of the fundamental problems faced by military planners is the assessment of changes to force structure. An example is whether to replace an existing capability with an enhanced system. This can be done directly with a comparison of measures such as accuracy, lethality, survivability, etc. However this approach does not allow an assessment of the force multiplier effects of the proposed change. To gauge these effects, planners often turn to war-gaming. For many war-gaming experiments, it is expensive, both in terms of time and dollars, to generate a large number of sample observations. This puts a premium on the statistical methodology used to examine these small datasets. In this paper we compare the power of three tests to assess population differences: the Wald-Wolfowitz test, the Mann-Whitney U test, and re-sampling. We employ a series of Monte Carlo simulation experiments. Not unexpectedly, we find that the Mann-Whitney test performs better than the Wald-Wolfowitz test. Resampling is judged to perform slightly better than the Mann-Whitney test.
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 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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.018 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".