Factorial ANOVA with unbalanced data: A fresh look at the types of sums of squares
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper we endeavour to provide a largely non-technical description of the issues surrounding unbalanced factorial ANOVA and review the arguments made for and against the use of Type I, Type II and Type III sums of squares. Though the issue of which is the `best' approach has been debated in the literature for decades, to date confusion remains around how the procedures differ and which is most appropriate. We ultimately recommend use of the Type II sums of squares for analysis of main effects because when no interaction is present it tests meaningful hypotheses and is the most statistically powerful alternative.
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 | 0.167 | 0.376 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.022 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.016 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.015 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.003 |
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".