Using Pearson’s System of Curves to Approximate the Distributions of the Difference between Two Correlated Estimates of Signal-to-Noise Ratios: The Cases of Bivariate Normal and Bivariate Lognormal Distributions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) is recognized as an index of measurements reproducibility. We derive the maximum likelihood estimators of SNR and discuss confidence interval construction on the difference between two correlated SNRs when the readings are from bivariate normal and bivariate lognormal distribution. We use the Pearson’s system of curves to approximate the difference between the two estimates and use the bootstrap methods to validate the approximate distributions of the statistic of interest. Methods: The paper uses the delta method to find the first four central moments, and hence the skewness and kurtosis which are important in the determination of the parameters of the Pearson’s distribution. Results: The approach is illustrated in two examples; one from veterinary microbiology and food safety data and the other on data from clinical medicine. We derived the four central moments of the target statistics, together with the bootstrap method to evaluate the parameters of Pearson’s distribution. The fitted Pearson’s curves of Types I and II were recommended based on the available data. The R-codes are also provided to be readily used by the readers.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.016 | 0.090 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.009 |
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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".