A Non-Parametric Maximum for Reasonable Number of Rejected Hypotheses: Objective Optima for False Discovery Rate and Significance Threshold in Exploratory Research with Application to Ordinal Survey Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper identifies a criterion for choosing the largest set of rejected hypotheses in high-dimensional data analysis where Multiple Hypothesis testing is used in exploratory research to identify significant associations among many variables. The method neither requires predetermined thresholds for level of significance, nor uses presumed thresholds for false discovery rate. The upper limit for number of rejected hypotheses is determined by finding maximum difference between expected true hypotheses and false hypotheses among all possible sets of rejected hypotheses. Methods of choosing a reasonable number of rejected hypotheses and application to non-parametric analysis of ordinal survey data are presented.
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 | 0.249 | 0.600 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.010 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.014 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".