HYPOTHESIS TESTING IN COMPARATIVE AND EXPERIMENTAL STUDIES OF FUNCTION-VALUED TRAITS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many traits of evolutionary interest, when placed in their developmental, physiological, or environmental contexts, are function-valued. For instance, gene expression during development is typically a function of the age of an organism and physiological processes are often a function of environment. In comparative and experimental studies, a fundamental question is whether the function-valued trait of one group is different from another. To address this question, evolutionary biologists have several statistical methods available. These methods can be classified into one of two types: multivariate and functional. Multivariate methods, including univariate repeated-measures analysis of variance (ANOVA), treat each trait as a finite list of data. Functional methods, such as repeated-measures regression, view the data as a sample of points drawn from an underlying function. A key difference between multivariate and functional methods is that functional methods retain information about the ordering and spacing of a set of data values, information that is discarded by multivariate methods. In this study, we evaluated the importance of that discarded information in statistical analyses of function-valued traits. Our results indicate that functional methods tend to have substantially greater statistical power than multivariate approaches to detect differences in a function-valued trait between groups.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.209 | 0.463 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".