Negative Consequences of Using α = 0.05 for Environmental Monitoring Decisions: A Case Study from a Decade of Canada’s Environmental Effects Monitoring Program
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Using the traditional α = 0.05 significance level for null hypothesis significance tests makes assumptions about relative costs of Type I vs relevant Type II errors and inflates their combined probabilities. We have examined the results of 1254 monitoring tests conducted under the Canadian Environmental Effects Monitoring (EEM) program from 1992 to 2003, focusing on how the choice of α affected the relative probabilities and implied costs of Type I and Type II errors. Using α = 0.05 resulted in implied relative costs of Type I vs Type II errors that were both inconsistent among monitoring end points and also inconsistent with the philosophy of the monitoring program. Using α = 0.05 also resulted in combinations of Type I and II error that were 15-17% larger than those for "optimal" α levels set to minimize Type I and II errors for each study, and 12% of all monitoring tests would have reached opposite conclusions had they used these optimal α levels for decision-making. Thus, if the Canadian EEM program used study-specific optimal α levels, they would reduce the incidence of relevant errors and eliminate inconsistent implied relative costs of these errors. Environmental research and monitoring programs using α = 0.05 as a decision-making threshold should re-evaluate the usefulness of this "one-size-fits-all" approach.
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 | 0.118 | 0.239 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".