MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2912994842 · doi:10.1080/03610918.2018.1530783

A more powerful familywise error control procedure for evaluating mean equivalence

2019· article· en· W2912994842 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueCommunications in Statistics - Simulation and Computation · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistical Methods in Clinical Trials
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBonferroni correctionType I and type II errorsEquivalence (formal languages)Multiple comparisons problemMathematicsStatisticsMonte Carlo methodComputer scienceDiscrete mathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

When one wishes to show no meaningful differences among group means, equivalence tests should be used, as a nonsignificant test of mean difference does not provide evidence supporting equivalence. This research proposes two modified stepwise procedures for controlling the familywise Type I error rate, based on the Bonferroni-type correction of k2/4 (where k is the number of groups to be compared) proposed by Caffo, Lauzon and Rohmel (2013 Correction to “easy multiplicity control in equivalence testing using two One-Sided tests. The American Statistician 67 (2):115–6) Bonferroni-type correction of k2/4 (where k is the number of groups to be compared). Using a Monte Carlo simulation method, we show that adopting a stepwise procedure increases power, while maintaining the familywise error rate at or below α. Implications for applied research and directions for future study are discussed.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.026
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.468
Threshold uncertainty score0.983

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.026
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.682
GPT teacher head0.653
Teacher spread0.028 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it