MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7124133016 · doi:10.37665/lefmvmh58851

“Life-Tests of Small Sample Sizes = Trouble”… or “What Can You Learn, If You Test Only a Few?”

2002· article· W7124133016 on OpenAlexaff
T. Clifford

Bibliographic record

VenueSpecialized and Legacy Electronics Manufacturing Conferences · 2002
Typearticle
Language
FieldEngineering
TopicBiosensors and Analytical Detection
Canadian institutionsLockheed Martin (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSample size determinationSample (material)Quality (philosophy)Test (biology)Statistical hypothesis testingTest method

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Life tests are troublesome and expensive, but increasingly necessary in microelectronics development. An adequate sample size is critical; but samples are rare and precious. And important decisions must often be made based on testing only a few samples. Danger!! Be very careful not to be led expensively astray. And be skeptical of reported "data", based on few samples. This paper offers some insight into the quality of tiny-N statistics, as well as guidance to manage decisions involving life-tests of few samples.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Scholarly communication, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.947
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.208 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSpecialized and Legacy Electronics Manufacturing ConferencesSame topicBiosensors and Analytical DetectionFrench-language works237,207