MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410287969 · doi:10.1080/00949655.2025.2502539

Bartlett-type correction for testing homogeneity of inverse Gaussian means

2025· article· en· W4410287969 on OpenAlexafffund
Octavia Wong, Guandong Qiao, A. Di Loreto, Xiaoping Shi, Augustine Wong

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Statistical Computation and Simulation · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicAdvanced Statistical Methods and Models
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaStatistics CanadaYork UniversityUniversity of Toronto
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsMathematicsHomogeneity (statistics)Inverse Gaussian distributionStatisticsInverseType I and type II errorsGaussianApplied mathematicsEconometricsMathematical analysisGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Similar to the normal distribution, the inverse Gaussian distribution has two parameters describing the location and the scale of the distribution. Hence, inverse Gaussian distribution is a convenient modelling alternative to the normal distribution. However, inference for homogeneity of means of k independent normal distributions is well established, whereas the same problem for k independent inverse Gaussian distributions is rarely discussed in the statistics literature. In this paper, the Studentization method is applied to obtain the marginal likelihood function for the mean parameter of the inverse Gaussian distribution. Then a Bartlett-type correction of the log likelihood ratio statistic obtained from the marginal likelihood function is proposed to test homogeneity of means of k independent inverse Gaussian distributions. Furthermore, by a slight modification of the proposed method, inference for the common mean parameter can also be accurately obtained. Simulation results indicate that the proposed method outperformed the existing methods.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.039
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.246
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.039
Threshold uncertainty score0.207

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0390.246
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.003
Bibliometrics0.0040.005
Science and technology studies0.0030.005
Scholarly communication0.0030.004
Open science0.0040.003
Research integrity0.0030.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0150.003

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 head0.141
GPT teacher head0.457
Teacher spread0.316 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Statistical Computation and SimulationSame topicAdvanced Statistical Methods and ModelsFrench-language works237,207