MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2135894553 · doi:10.7202/029931ar

L’interprétation des tests d’hypothèses : p, la taille de l’effet et la puissance

2009· article· fr· W2135894553 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Jimmy Bourque, Jean‐Guy Blais, François Larose

Bibliographic record

VenueRevue des sciences de l éducation · 2009
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicMeta-analysis and systematic reviews
Canadian institutionsUniversité de SherbrookeUniversité de MontréalUniversité de Moncton
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPhilosophyMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cet article vise à expliciter la logique des tests d’hypothèses en recherche. Plusieurs études ont démontré une confusion quant à la signification des résultats de tests d’hypothèses. Cette confusion proviendrait en partie des points divergents entre les approches de Fisher, de Neyman et Pearson ainsi que de Bayes. L’article précise l’information fournie par le coefficient de signification, la taille de l’effet et la puissance et propose différents logiciels permettant l’analyse de la puissance et de la taille de l’effet.

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)0.303
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.724
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.697
Threshold uncertainty score0.860

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.3030.724
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0070.011
Bibliometrics0.0100.009
Science and technology studies0.0020.017
Scholarly communication0.0120.019
Open science0.0060.006
Research integrity0.0120.014
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.002

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 head0.860
GPT teacher head0.606
Teacher spread0.254 · 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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
DomainMethods
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations23
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRevue des sciences de l éducationSame topicMeta-analysis and systematic reviewsFrench-language works237,207