MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408835014 · doi:10.3329/jsr.v58i2.80606

A test of significance for Benford’s law based on the Chebyshev distance

2025· article· en· W4408835014 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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Statistical Research · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicBenford’s Law and Fraud Detection
Canadian institutionsCollege of Family Physicians of Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBenford's lawTest (biology)MathematicsLawStatisticsGeologyPolitical sciencePaleontology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We show, by means of a numerical simulation, that the asymptotic (n ≥ 100) cumulative distribution function of the Chebyshev distance statistic is well approximated by a log-normal function with parameters μ = −0.6183 and σ = 0.3561 in the null hypothesis that Benford’s law holds. The deviations of the cumulative function observed in Monte Carlo simulations from the empirical one are below 0.5%. This makes the statistical test based on the Chebyshev statistic accurate at a level of 1% when testing Benford’s law for moderately large and large numbers of data points. Test values of the Chebyshev distance as a function of the sample size are also estimated empirically by performing a Monte Carlo simulation in the case of low n (10 ≤ n ≤ 99). The efficacy and power of the goodness-of-fit test based on the Chebyshev estimator are analyzed and compared with those based on the Pearson χ2 and Kolmogorov-Smirnov statistics. Finally, an application of the Chebyshev test to the annual deaths counts by country is discussed. Journal of Statistical Research 2024, Vol. 58, No. 2, pp. 259-277

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
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 score0.978
Threshold uncertainty score0.994

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.014
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 integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.145
GPT teacher head0.454
Teacher spread0.309 · 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