A contrast of meta and metafor packages for meta‐analyses in R
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is extensive choice in R to support meta-analyses.Two packages in this ecosystem include meta and metafor and provide an excellent opportunity to apply a structured checklist previously developed for contrasts between R packages relevant to challenges in ecology and evolution.Meta is a direct, intuitive choice for rapid implementation of general meta-analytical statistics. Metafor is a comprehensive package best suited for relatively more complex models.Both packages provide estimates of heterogeneity, excellent visualization tools, and functions to explore publication bias.The package metafor has a steeper learning curve but greater rewards. Reference to the learning curve and capacities of the statistical software Stata provided a benchmark outside the R ecosystem and confirmed the consistency in statistics.The usefulness of meta-analyses is not just in the synthesis of the research but in the process of doing the scientific synthesis. Reporting of contrasts and checks for robust statistics is an important contribution to more transparent and reproducible scientific syntheses.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it