MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Efficiency Evaluation of Statistical Tests for Homogeneity of Variances under Normal, Beta, and Weibull Distributional Frameworks

2025· article· en· W4414936170 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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Analysis and Applications · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicAdvanced Statistical Methods and Models
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersKasetsart University
KeywordsStatisticLevene's testHomogeneity (statistics)F-test of equality of variancesWeibull distributionStatistical hypothesis testingF-testType I and type II errorsStatistical powerTest statistic

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This research endeavor aims to evaluate six test statistics relevant to assessing of homogeneity of variance (HOV): Bartlett’s (BL), Levene’s (LV), modified Levene’s (LVM), Klotz’s (KL), Layard’s (LY), and Samiuddin’s (SMD). Simulated datasets were generated under the frameworks of normal, Beta, and Weibull distributions, encompassing both three and four groups, while incorporating variations in sample sizes that were both equal and unequal. Each experimental condition was replicated 5,000 times to ensure the precision of statistical outcomes. In the context of the normal distribution, the BL, LY, and SMD statistics exhibited strong control over Type I error rates, with the BL and LY statistics achieving the highest statistical power among the tests classified as acceptable. Whereas the LV and LVM statistics demonstrated competence in error control, they were characterized by reduced power; conversely, the SMD statistic exhibited significantly low power. In contrast, the KL statistic consistently yielded inflated error rates, rendering it inappropriate for practical application. In the realm of the Beta distribution, the KL, LVM, and LY statistics emerged as the most proficient performers, adeptly preserving Type I error rates. The KL statistic, notwithstanding its mediocre performance under normal distribution conditions, demonstrated the greatest resilience within this specific context. The LVM statistic maintained a conservative approach; the LY statistic exhibited precision yet was somewhat less robust when faced with skewed data, the LV statistic demonstrated moderate effectiveness, the BL statistic was excessively cautious, and the SMD statistic was classified as unreliable. In relation to the Weibull distribution, the LY, SMD, KL, and LVM statistics consistently controlled the Type I error rates. The BL statistic performed satisfactorily but exhibited a slight inclination towards inflation of Type I error rates, whereas the LV statistic was assessed as unreliable. The BL statistic attained the highest statistical power, albeit with correspondingly elevated Type I error rates. The LVM and LY statistics demonstrated considerable power across diverse scenarios, with the LY statistic being preferentially utilized for small to medium sample sizes and the LVM statistic for larger sample sizes. The SMD and KL statistics consistently ranked lowest in terms of empirical power.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
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 score0.714
Threshold uncertainty score0.239

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
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 integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.066
GPT teacher head0.480
Teacher spread0.414 · 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