Are We Drawing the Correct Conclusions? Regression Analysis in the Nonprofit Literature
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Linear models are the most commonly used analytical tools in the nonprofit literature. Academics and practitioners utilize these models to test different hypotheses in support of their research efforts, seeking to find significant results that substantiate their theories. And yet the authors of this article have discovered a surprisingly large number of insignificant results in articles from established nonprofit journals. Insignificant hypotheses and Type II errors surely account for a number of these results, but the authors believe the majority of these results are due to a different cause, one that is detectable and preventable: multicollinearity.Dans les articles sur les organismes sans but lucratif, les modèles linéaires sont les outils analytiques les plus communément utilisés. En effet, académiques et praticiens utilisent tous les deux ces modèles pour évaluer diverses hypothèses relatives à leurs recherches, espérant trouver des résultats significatifs pouvant confirmer leurs théories. Pourtant, les auteurs de cet article ont découvert un nombre surprenant de résultats non significatifs dans des articles de revues établies sur les organismes sans but lucratif. Des hypothèses non significatives et des erreurs du type II expliquent sûrement certains de ces résultats, mais les auteurs croient que la majorité des résultats ont une cause différente qui est détectable et évitable : la multicolinéarité.
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 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 | 0.008 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".