MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2516833269 · doi:10.20982/tqmp.10.1.p056

Representing Error bars in within-subject designs in typical software packages

2014· article· en· W2516833269 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Quantitative Methods for Psychology · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicBehavioral and Psychological Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSubject (documents)SoftwareComputer scienceEngineering drawingStructural engineeringEngineeringProgramming languageWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The addition of error bars in graphs can greatly assist readers in determining where differences lie between groups or conditions. The use of error bars to represent the standard error of the mean or confidence intervals is relatively straightforward for between-subject (independent group) designs. However, confusion still abounds as to how best to graph these same measures for within-subject (repeated-measures) designs. This paper serves both to consolidate previous recommendations regarding error bars for within-subject studies and to provide clear instructions as to how to implement these recommendations using typical statistical packages.

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 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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.542
Threshold uncertainty score0.930

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.595
GPT teacher head0.573
Teacher spread0.022 · 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