MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

10 simple rules for developing the best experimental design in biology

2016· preprint· en· W2522731756 on OpenAlexaff
Angela Joseph

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicSpecies Distribution and Climate Change
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSimple (philosophy)Computer scienceYield (engineering)Management scienceData scienceEngineeringEpistemology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

These 10 simple rules were designed to help researchers develop an effective experimental design in ecology that will help yield meaningful results. These rules were based off of four articles which presented distinctive views on the expectations of experimental design along with common mistakes which are often overseen. These rules will act as a guide for researchers to determine whether or not different factors were considered in the construction of their experimental design. It will also help editors and readers deduce whether the experimental design used in an experiment was well designed or not and how it could be improved.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.304
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.365
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.696
Threshold uncertainty score0.858

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.3040.365
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0060.006
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.006
Bibliometrics0.0070.004
Science and technology studies0.0050.016
Scholarly communication0.0120.009
Open science0.0100.006
Research integrity0.0120.022
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.008

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 head0.116
GPT teacher head0.342
Teacher spread0.226 · 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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
DomainMethods
GenreMethods

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

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSpecies Distribution and Climate Change→French-language works237,207→