MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413859066 · doi:10.5539/ijsp.v14n3p23

Sequential Tests Based on F-Distribution for Detecting Active Effects in Unreplicated Two-Level Factorial Designs

2025· article· en· W4413859066 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Abdullah Al-Shiha, Rahaf A. A. Alzammam

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Statistics and Probability · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicOptimal Experimental Design Methods
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMathematicsFactorial experimentFactorialStatisticsDistribution (mathematics)Fractional factorial designMathematical analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper introduces a new methodology for detecting active effects in unreplicated two-level factorial experiments, which are of great importance in many scientific and practical fields. The proposed method aims to enhance the reliability and accuracy of detecting active effects compared to the popular method introduced by Lenth (1989). The new approach utilizes the F-distribution for significance testing, and it eliminates the needs of estimating the error variance or creating new critical value tables. A comprehensive simulation study was conducted using the Monte Carlo simulation method to evaluate the performance of the proposed method compared to Lenth's method in terms of the size and power of the test under different conditions. The results demonstrated the superiority of the proposed method. Additionally, three practical applications were analyzed using both methods to illustrate the practical effectiveness of the new approach. The simplicity and robustness of the proposed method make it a practical and effective method and a good choice for the analysis of unreplicated two-level factorial experiments.

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)0.030
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.106
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 score0.030
Threshold uncertainty score0.158

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0300.106
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.002
Bibliometrics0.0050.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0010.003
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.162
GPT teacher head0.479
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 routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Statistics and ProbabilitySame topicOptimal Experimental Design MethodsFrench-language works237,207