Pairwise multiple comparisons: A model comparison approach versus stepwise procedures
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Researchers in the behavioural sciences have been presented with a host of pairwise multiple comparison procedures that attempt to obtain an optimal combination of Type I error control, power, and ease of application. However, these procedures share one important limitation: intransitive decisions. Moreover, they can be characterized as a piecemeal approach to the problem rather than a holistic approach. Dayton has recently proposed a new approach to pairwise multiple comparisons testing that eliminates intransitivity through a model selection procedure. The present study compared the model selection approach (and a protected version) with three powerful and easy-to-use stepwise multiple comparison procedures in terms of the proportion of times that the procedure identified the true pattern of differences among a set of means across several one-way layouts. The protected version of the model selection approach selected the true model a significantly greater proportion of times than the stepwise procedures and, in most cases, was not affected by variance heterogeneity and non-normality.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it