“Who,What, Where,and Why”

The North Carolina Serials Conference was very fortunate to have secured Rachel Frick for its keynote speaker for 2013. The conference was a homecoming for Frick, who is a graduate of the University of North Carolina MSLS program and is currently the Director of the Digital Library Federation Program for the Council on Library and Information Resources (CLIR), a think tank and research organization located in Washington, D.C. The Digital Library Federation (DLF) has been in existence since 1995, its target audiences being digital library practitioners and other interested parties who are on the front-lines of teaching and learning in this specialty. In her address entitled “Who, What, Where, Why, and How,” Frick discussed some of the major initiatives and issues currently occurring within and around librarianship, exploring the effect that these large scale initiatives can, and should, have at the local level. She can be reached at her Twitter feed, @rlfrick.     

SAMPLE SURVEYS VERSUS EXPERIMENTS,CONTROLLED OBSERVATIONS,CENSUSES, REGISTERS,AND LOCAL STUDIES1 2

Can we find some common principle in the three comparisons? Lacking adequate time for a thorough exploration, let me suggest that representation is that common principle. I suggested (section 4) that judgment selection of spatial versus temporal extensions distinguish “longitudinal” local studies from “cross-section” population sampling. We had noted (section 3) that censuses are taken for detailed representation of the spatial dimension but they depend on judgmental selection of the temporal. Survey sampling lacks spatial detail but is spatially representative with randomization, and it can be made timely. Periodic samples can be designed that are representative of temporal extension. Furthermore, spatial and temporal detail can be obtained either through estimation or through cumulated samples [Purcell and Kish 1979, 1980; Kish 1979b, 1981, 1986 6.6]. Registers and administrative records can have good spatial and temporal representation, but representation may be lacking in population content, and surely in representation of variables. Representation of variables and of the relations between variables and over the population are the issues in conflict between surveys, experiments, and observations. This is a deep subject, and too deep to be explored again, as it was in section 2. A final point about limits for randomization to achieve representation through sampling: randomization for selecting samples of variables is beyond me generally, because I cannot conceive of frames for defined populations of variables. Yet we can find attempts at randomized selection of variables: in the selection of items for the consumer price index, also of items for tests of IQ or of achievements. Generally I believe that randomization is the way to achieve representation without complete coverage, and that it can be applied and practised in many dimensions.     

Treatment effect quantification for time‐to‐event endpoints–Estimands,analysis strategies,and beyond

A draft addendum to ICH E9 has been released for public consultation in August 2017. The addendum focuses on two topics particularly relevant for randomized confirmatory clinical trials: estimands and sensitivity analyses. The need to amend ICH E9 grew out of the realization of a lack of alignment between the objectives of a clinical trial stated in the protocol and the accompanying quantification of the “treatment effect” reported in a regulatory submission. We embed time‐to‐event endpoints in the estimand framework and discuss how the four estimand attributes described in the addendum apply to time‐to‐event endpoints. We point out that if the proportional hazards assumption is not met, the estimand targeted by the most prevalent methods used to analyze time‐to‐event endpoints, logrank test, and Cox regression depends on the censoring distribution. We discuss for a large randomized clinical trial how the analyses for the primary and secondary endpoints as well as the sensitivity analyses actually performed in the trial can be seen in the context of the addendum. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first attempt to do so for a trial with a time‐to‐event endpoint. Questions that remain open with the addendum for time‐to‐event endpoints and beyond are formulated, and recommendations for planning of future trials are given. We hope that this will provide a contribution to developing a common framework based on the final version of the addendum that can be applied to design, protocols, statistical analysis plans, and clinical study reports in the future.     

Discussion on ‘Detection of intrusions in information systems by sequential change-point methods’ by Tartakovsky, Rozovskii, Blažek, and Kim

The discussion points on the inadequacy of the ARL as an index of efficiency of a detection procedure for change points. It is shown that the FAR=1/ARL might be small, while the probability of false alarm (PFA) is at the same time considerable. This is illustrated with simulation runs, using the Shiryayev–Roberts detection procedure. The need to develop procedures based on continuous monitoring is also mentioned.     

La médiane simpliciale d'Oja: Existence,unicité et stabilité

Oja (1983) examined various ways of measuring location, scatter, skewness, and kurtosis for multivariate distributions. Among other measures of location, he introduced a generalised median known in this paper under the name of the Oja median. In our study of the existence of that median, we show that Oja's definition can only be applied to distributions having a mean. In dimension d θ 2, we establish that the usual method of extension breaks down, which raises the question of the validity of the concept as a notion of median. Two fundamental theoretical properties of that median are also considered: uniqueness and consistency.     

Predictive Inference for Big,Spatial, Non‐Gaussian Data: MODIS Cloud Data and its Change‐of‐Support

Remote sensing of the earth with satellites yields datasets that can be massive in size, nonstationary in space, and non‐Gaussian in distribution. To overcome computational challenges, we use the reduced‐rank spatial random effects (SRE) model in a statistical analysis of cloud‐mask data from NASA's Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) instrument on board NASA's Terra satellite. Parameterisations of cloud processes are the biggest source of uncertainty and sensitivity in different climate models’ future projections of Earth's climate. An accurate quantification of the spatial distribution of clouds, as well as a rigorously estimated pixel‐scale clear‐sky‐probability process, is needed to establish reliable estimates of cloud‐distributional changes and trends caused by climate change. Here we give a hierarchical spatial‐statistical modelling approach for a very large spatial dataset of 2.75 million pixels, corresponding to a granule of MODIS cloud‐mask data, and we use spatial change‐of‐Support relationships to estimate cloud fraction at coarser resolutions. Our model is non‐Gaussian; it postulates a hidden process for the clear‐sky probability that makes use of the SRE model, EM‐estimation, and optimal (empirical Bayes) spatial prediction of the clear‐sky‐probability process. Measures of prediction uncertainty are also given.     

<Emphasis Type="Italic">R</Emphasis>-charts for the exponential,Laplace and logistic processes

This paper (i) discusses theR-chart with asymmetric probability control limits under the assumption that the distribution of the quality characteristic under study is either exponential, Laplace, or logistic, (ii) examines the effect of the estimated probability limits on the performance of theR-chart, and (iii) obtains the desired probability limits of theR-chart that has a specified false alarm rate when probability limits must be estimated from preliminary samples taken from either the exponential, Laplace, or logistic processes.