MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1993593244 · doi:10.1037/a0030785

Correct effect size estimates for strength of association statistics: Comment on Odgaard and Fowler (2010).

2013· letter· en· W1993593244 on OpenAlexaff
Matthew D. Lerner, Amori Yee Mikami

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology · 2013
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicAdvanced Causal Inference Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersJefferson Scholars FoundationInternational Max Planck Research School for Environmental, Cellular and Molecular MicrobiologyAssociation for Psychological ScienceNational Institute of Mental HealthAmerican Psychological Foundation
KeywordsStatisticsAssociation (psychology)PsychologyConfidence intervalEconometricsEstimationMathematicsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Odgaard and Fowler (2010) articulated the importance of reporting confidence intervals (CIs) on effect size estimates, and they provided useful formulas for doing so. However, one of their reported formulas, pertaining to the calculation of CIs on strength of association effect sizes (e.g., R² or η²), is erroneous. This comment identifies the error and provides 2 accurate alternatives. An illustration is presented, and the importance of authors' specification of their chosen CI estimation formula is asserted.

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.037
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.646
Threshold uncertainty score0.971

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.037
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
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 head0.179
GPT teacher head0.507
Teacher spread0.328 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Consulting and Clinical PsychologySame topicAdvanced Causal Inference TechniquesFrench-language works237,207