Conducting Simulation Studies in the R Programming Environment
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
Simulation studies allow researchers to answer specific questions about data analysis, statistical power, and best-practices for obtaining accurate results in empirical research. Despite the benefits that simulation research can provide, many researchers are unfamiliar with available tools for conducting their own simulation studies. The use of simulation studies need not be restricted to researchers with advanced skills in statistics and computer programming, and such methods can be implemented by researchers with a variety of abilities and interests. The present paper provides an introduction to methods used for running simulation studies using the R statistical programming environment and is written for individuals with minimal experience running simulation studies or using R. The paper describes the rationale and benefits of using simulations and introduces R functions relevant for many simulation studies. Three examples illustrate different applications for simulation studies, including (a) the use of simulations to answer a novel question about statistical analysis, (b) the use of simulations to estimate statistical power, and (c) the use of simulations to obtain confidence intervals of parameter estimates through bootstrapping. Results and fully annotated syntax from these examples are provided.
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 | 0.009 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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