To date, the only results we have that are both ?good? and fully cross- fold are the ?het?-related results:
a1 a3 b1 b47 c1 c2 C S C S c S c S C S C S Het 1N Aubqe H H L L H H H H L L L L 0 3N Aubqe L L H H L L H H H H L L 0
LH-Het 3N Aubqu L H H H H H L H L H L H 4
HL-Het 1N CVubq H L H L H L H L H L H L 6 2N CVubq H L H L H L H L H L H L 6
where Aubqe is the average slope of e in regression Rubq = c on (e,u,u*e,u^2) Aubqu is the average slope of u in regression Rubq = c on (e,u,u*e,u^2) CVubq is the covar of e and u in regression Rubq = c on (e,u,u*emu^2(
These results are ?good? not only because:
a) your MonteCarlo-ing indicated p?s for Het=0, LH-Het= 4, HL-Het=6 of .022, .049, and .001 respectively;
but also because:
b) no set x MoSS combination involving MoSS=R exhibits a value for Het, LH-Het, or HL-het with an associated probability of < .05.
And therefore, the three flavors of ?hetness? can certainly be said to successfully distinguish our non-random dicodon subsets from our random dicodon subsets (an outcome we have not been able to achieve ACROSS ALL FOLDS via computation of 2-ways or Q-associated p?s etc.)
On the other hand, you?ve expressed two kinds of reservations about ?hetness?:
c) it involves a dichotomization of slopes obtained when Aubqe or Aubqu or CVubq is regressed on length;
d) you yourself have no intuition at all about what CVubq might actually ?mean, and only a vague intuition about what Aubqe or Aubqu might actually ?mean?.
So, given these reservations, are you amenable to further investigation of ?hetness?, or is that somewhere you don?t particularly want to go?
Thanks as always for considering this question, and please forgive the apparent "numerology". (I should have introduced the matter in the context of local properties of surfaces in the neighborhoods of different points ... standard differential geometry.)