Modern Regression Methods that can Substantially Increase Power and Provide a more Accurate Understanding of Associations
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
During the last half century hundreds of papers published in statistical journals have documented general conditions where reliance on least squares regression and Pearson's correlation can result in missing even strong associations between variables. Moreover, highly misleading conclusions can be made, even when the sample size is large. There are, in fact, several fundamental concerns related to non-normality, outliers, heteroscedasticity, and curvature that can result in missing a strong association. Simultaneously, a vast array of new methods have been derived for effectively dealing with these concerns. The paper (1) reviews why least squares regression and classic inferential methods can fail, (2) provides an overview of the many modern strategies for dealing with known problems, including some recent advances, and (3) illustrates that modern robust methods can make a practical difference in our understanding of data. Included are some general recommendations regarding how modern methods might be used.
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 | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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