Within Groups Multiple Comparisons Based On Robust Measures Of Location
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Consider the problem of performing all pair-wise comparisons among J dependent groups based on measures of location associated with the marginal distributions. It is well known that the standard error of the sample mean can be large relative to other estimators when outliers are common. Two general strategies for addressing this problem are to trim a fixed proportion of observations or empirically check for outliers and remove (or down-weight) any that are found. However, simply applying conventional methods for means to the data that remain results in using the wrong standard error. Methods that address this problem have been proposed, but among the situations considered in published studies, no method has been found that gives good control over the probability of a Type I error when sample sizes are small (less than or equal to thirty); the actual probability of a Type I error can drop well below the nominal level. The paper suggests using a slight generalization of a percentile bootstrap method to address this problem.
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 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 | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it