MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1965544836 · doi:10.1198/000313002753631321

Thoughts on the Origins, Concepts, and Pedagogy of Statistics as a “Separate Discipline”

2002· article· en· W1965544836 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

VenueThe American Statistician · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistics Education and Methodologies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDisciplineSubject (documents)Field (mathematics)StatisticsStatistics educationMathematics educationSociologyEpistemologyMathematicsSocial scienceComputer scienceLibrary sciencePhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Statistics arose in part out of the interplay between mathematics and the data-analytic needs of various applied sciences (Stigler 1999). Close linkages to mathematics and to research-oriented fields have prompted debate over the emergence of statistics as a distinct field of study. Efforts to differentiate statistics from mathematics have drawn attention to its unique history, questions, and content. Insofar as statistics is an evolving subject area, with academic and practical ties to a number of disciplines and professions, it continues to benefit from the examination of its origins, nature, and unfolding. This article contributes to this general goal through a review of (a) early definitions of statistics, (b) recent discussions of disciplinary boundaries, (c) twentieth-century reform views on including statistics topics in school mathematics, and (d) the impact of curricular and pedagogic factors on the uniformity of the discipline.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.433
Threshold uncertainty score0.552

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.181
GPT teacher head0.482
Teacher spread0.301 · 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