MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1736389262 · doi:10.1002/0470013192.bsa420

Multiple Comparison Procedures

2005· other· en· W1736389262 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueEncyclopedia of Statistics in Behavioral Science · 2005
Typeother
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistical Methods in Clinical Trials
Canadian institutionsYork UniversityUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPairwise comparisonVariance (accounting)Homogeneity (statistics)StatisticsAnalysis of varianceNormalityMultiple comparisons problemMathematicsSimple (philosophy)Variance componentsComputer scienceEconometrics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Multiple comparison procedures (MCPs) are frequently adopted by applied researchers to locate specific differences between treatment groups. That is, omnibus test statistics, such as the analysis of variance F test, can only signify that effects are present, not which specific groups differ from one another (when there are more than two groups). In our paper, we discuss MCPs that can be used to investigate simple pairwise differences between treatment group means, as well as MCPs that can be used to examine complex comparisons (i.e., nonpairwise comparisons) between treatment group means. In particular, we discuss simultaneous as well as stepwise MCPs, emphasizing procedures that can be utilized when the derivational assumptions of the classical procedures of normality and variance homogeneity do not hold.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.050
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.791
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.050
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.309
GPT teacher head0.548
Teacher spread0.239 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it