The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Computer Intensive Methods for Testing Hypotheses.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Trading Is Hazardous to Your Wealth: The Common Stock Investment Performance of Individual Investors
Barber, B. M., & Odean, T. (2000) · The Journal of Finance · doi:10.1111/0022-1082.00226 · Cited by 3,955
Making the most of statistical analyses: improving interpretation and presentation
King, G., Tomz, M., & Wittenberg, J. (2000) · American Journal of Political Science · doi:10.2307/2669316 · Cited by 3,232
Introduction to the CoNLL-2003 Shared Task: Language-Independent Named Entity Recognition
Tjong Kim Sang, E. F., & De Meulder, F. (2003) · Proceedings of the seventh conference on Natural language learning at HLT-NAACL 2003 - · doi:10.3115/1119176.1119195 · Cited by 2,788
Do Brokerage Analysts' Recommendations Have Investment Value?
WOMACK, K. L. (1996) · The Journal of Finance · doi:10.1111/j.1540-6261.1996.tb05205.x · Cited by 1,931
The Importance of Syntactic Parsing and Inference in Semantic Role Labeling
Punyakanok, V., Roth, D., & Yih, W.-T. (2008) · Computational Linguistics · doi:10.1162/coli.2008.34.2.257 · Cited by 391
Metadata
- Authors
- Hollas, E. A., & Noreen, E. W.
- Venue
- The Statistician
- Publisher
- JSTOR
- Published
- 1990
- Volume
- 39
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 89
- ISSN
- 0039-0526 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2016522586
- Cited by
- 395
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 12.77
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Computer Intensive Methods for Testing Hypotheses. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2307/2348203
- The paper
- Hollas, E. A., & Noreen, E. W. (1990). Computer Intensive Methods for Testing Hypotheses. The Statistician. https://doi.org/10.2307/2348203
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
