Bibliographic record
Abstract
All too often researchers perform a Multivariate Analysis of Variance (MANOVA) on their data and then fail to fully recognize the true multivariate nature of their effects. The most common error is to follow the MANOVA with univariate analyses of the dependent variables. One reason for the occurrence of such errors is the lack of clear pedagogical materials for identifying and testing the multivariate effects from the analysis. The current paper consequently reviews the fundamental differences between MANOVA and univariate Analysis of Variance and then presents a coherent set of methods for plumbing the multivariate nature of a given data set. A completely worked example using genuine data is given along with estimates of effect sizes and confidence intervals, and an example results section following the technical writing style of the American Psychological Association is presented. A number of issues regarding the current methods are also discussed.
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 | 0.023 | 0.080 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.006 |
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".