Using Simple Alternative Hypothesis to Increase Statistical Power in Sparse Categorical Data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There are numerous statistical hypothesis tests for categorical data including Pearson's Chi-Square goodness-of-fit test and other discrete versions of goodness-of-fit tests. For these hypothesis tests, the null hypothesis is simple, and the alternative hypothesis is composite which negates the simple null hypothesis. For power calculation, a researcher specifies a significance level, a sample size, a simple null hypothesis, and a simple alternative hypothesis. In practice, there are cases when an experienced researcher has deep and broad scientific knowledge, but the researcher may suffer from a lack of statistical power due to a small sample size being available. In such a case, we may formulate hypothesis testing based on a simple alternative hypothesis instead of the composite alternative hypothesis. In this article, we investigate how much statistical power can be gained via a correctly specified simple alternative hypothesis and how much statistical power can be lost under a misspecified alternative hypothesis, particularly when an available sample size is small.
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 | 0.175 | 0.588 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.002 |
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".