MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1994303059 · doi:10.1080/00220970309602065

Pairwise Multiple Comparisons: New Yardstick, New Results

2003· article· en· W1994303059 on OpenAlexaff
Robert A. Cribbie

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Experimental Education · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistical Methods in Clinical Trials
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBonferroni correctionMultiple comparisons problemFalse discovery rateStatisticsPairwise comparisonWord error rateType I and type II errorsComputer scienceMathematicsArtificial intelligenceBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Behavioral science researchers often wish to compare the means of several treatment conditions on a specific dependent measure. The author used a Monte Carlo study to compare familywise error controlling multiple comparison procedures (MCPs; e.g., Tukey, Bonferroni) with MCPs that were not developed to control the familywise error rate on the probability of correctly identifying the true underlying population mean configuration (true model rate). Recently proposed MCPs that are not intended to control the familywise error rate had consistently larger true model rates than did familywise error controlling MCPs. Furthermore, of the familywise error controlling MCPs investigated, the popular Tukey and Bonferroni MCPs had consistently lower true model rates than did other familywise error controlling MCPs.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.129
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.406
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.129
Threshold uncertainty score0.684

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1290.406
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0040.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0070.004
Bibliometrics0.0100.012
Science and technology studies0.0030.016
Scholarly communication0.0080.013
Open science0.0070.007
Research integrity0.0040.016
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0170.003

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 head0.559
GPT teacher head0.580
Teacher spread0.022 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations19
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Experimental EducationSame topicStatistical Methods in Clinical TrialsFrench-language works237,207