MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4390543639 · doi:10.28924/2291-8639-22-2024-4

Comparison of Test Statistics for Mean Difference Testing Between Two Independent Populations

2024· article· en· W4390543639 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Wasinee Pradubsri, Chawanee Suphirat

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Analysis and Applications · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistical Methods in Clinical Trials
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersRajamangala University of Technology Phra Nakhon
KeywordsMathematicsStatisticsLaplace distributionZ-testGamma distributionNormal distributionExponential functionLaplace transformExponential distributionNormal populationLog-normal distributionType I and type II errorsAnderson–Darling testMann–Whitney U testPopulationKolmogorov–Smirnov testStatistical hypothesis testingMathematical analysisTest statisticMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of the article is to evaluate the efficiency of seven test statistics for mean difference testing between two independent populations. The evaluation was based on the probability of type I error and power of the test at 0.05 significance level under population distributions assumed to be normal, exponential, log-normal, gamma, and Laplace with equal sample sizes, and both equal and unequal variances. The results showed that for equal variance, the test statistics with the highest testing power controlled the probability of type I error were Z-test for normal and exponential distributions, Welch based on rank test (WBR) for log-normal and gamma distributions, and Mann-Whitney U test (MWU) for Laplace distribution. For unequal variance, Z-test was more efficient under normal, exponential, log-normal, and gamma distributions, while WBR was appropriate for Laplace distribution.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.519
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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 head0.634
GPT teacher head0.639
Teacher spread0.005 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations2
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Analysis and ApplicationsSame topicStatistical Methods in Clinical TrialsFrench-language works237,207