MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Strategies for Addressing Poor Statistical Literacy among Health Scientists and Science Communicators

2016· article· en· W2400068877 on OpenAlexaff
Raywat Deonandan

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Medical and Health Sciences Research · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistics Education and Methodologies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNumeracyLiteracyInclusion (mineral)Health literacyHealth scienceMedical educationStatistical analysisPsychologyMathematics educationMedicinePolitical scienceSociologyHealth careSocial scienceStatisticsMathematicsPedagogy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Statistical literacy (SL) is an aspect of numeracy and a core educational competency. Overall levels of SL in North American society may be in decline, while evidence abounds of poor SL among researchers globally. Three strategies are recommended to help address poor SL among scholars and science communicators, with a particular focus on the health and medical sciences: (1) mandatory inclusion of computerized statistical platforms in undergraduate statistics classes; (2) requirement for statistical review in peer-reviewed paper submissions; and (3) the exploration of novel methods of results communication.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.038
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.570
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0380.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.006
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.730
GPT teacher head0.709
Teacher spread0.021 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
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

Citations1
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Medical and Health Sciences ResearchSame topicStatistics Education and MethodologiesFrench-language works237,207