INVERSE SAMPLING PROCEDURES TO TEST FOR HOMOGENEITY IN A MULTIVARIATE HYPERGEOMETRIC DISTRIBUTION
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this thesis we study several inverse sampling procedures to test for homogeneity in a multivariate hypergeometric distribution. The procedures are finite population analogues of the procedures introduced in Panchapakesan et al. (1998) for the multinomial distribution. In order to develop some exact calculations for critical values not considered in Panchapakesan et al. we introduce some terminologies for target probabilities, transfer probabilities, potential target points, right intersection, and left union. Under the null and the alternative hypotheses, we give theorems to calculate the target and transfer probabilities, we then use these results to develop exact calculations for the critical values and powers of one of the procedures. We also propose a new approximate calculation. In order to speed up some of the calculations, we propose several fast algorithms for multiple summation. N >= 1680000, all the results are the same as those in the multinomial distribution. The computing results showed that the simulations agree closely with the exact results. For small population sizes the critical values and powers of the procedures are different from the corresponding multinomial procedures, but when
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".