I can see clearly now: Reinterpreting statistical significance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Null hypothesis significance testing (NHST) remains popular despite decades of concern about misuse and misinterpretation. There are many recent suggestions for mitigating problems arising from NHST, including calls for abandoning NHST in favour of Bayesian or information‐theoretic approaches. We believe that NHST will continue to be widely used, and can be most usefully interpreted as a guide to whether a certain effect can be seen clearly in a particular context (e.g. whether we can clearly see that a correlation or between‐group difference is positive or negative). We believe that much misinterpretation of NHST is due to language: significance testing has little to do with other meanings of the word ‘significance’. We therefore suggest that researchers describe the conclusions of null‐hypothesis tests in terms of statistical ‘clarity’ rather than ‘significance’. We illustrate our point by rewriting common misinterpretations of the meaning of statistical tests found in the literature using the language of ‘clarity’. The meaning of statistical tests become easier to interpret and explain when viewed through the lens of ‘statistical clarity’. Our suggestion is mild, but practical: this simple semantic change could enhance clarity in statistical communication.
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 | 0.190 | 0.487 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.070 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.018 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.028 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".