Bibliographic record
Abstract
statistics, methods, precision, confidence intervals error bars are useful to understand data and their interrelations.here, it is shown that confidence intervals of the mean (ci M s) can be adjusted based on whether the objective is to highlight differences between measures or not and based on the experimental design (within-or between-group designs).confidence intervals (cis) can also be adjusted to take into account the sampling mechanisms and the population size (if not infinite).names are proposed to distinguish the various types of cis and the assumptions underlying them, and how to assess their validity is explained.the various cis presented here are easily obtained from a succession of multiplicative adjustments to the basic (unadjusted) ci width.All summary results should present a measure of precision, such as cis, as this information is complementary to effect sizes.
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 | 0.108 | 0.517 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".