Bibliographic record
Abstract
A symptom of the need for greater reproducibility in scientific practice is the decline effect-the fact that the size of many experimental effects decline with subsequent study or fail to replicate entirely. A simple way to combat this problem is for scientists to more routinely use confidence intervals (CIs) in their work. CIs provide frequentist bounds on the true size of an effect and can reveal when a statistically significant effect is possibly too small to be reliable or when a large effect might have been missed due to insufficient statistical power. CIs are often lacking in psychophysiological reports, likely due to the large number of dependent variables, which complicates deriving and visualizing CIs. In this article, I explain the value of CIs and show how to compute them for analyses involving multiple variables in various ways that adjust the intervals for the greater uncertainty induced by multiple statistical comparisons. The methods are illustrated using a basic visual oddball ERP dataset and freely available MATLAB software.
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 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 | 0.066 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.010 |
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; both teacher heads 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".