MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2994409524 · doi:10.1080/00031305.2020.1816214

Null Hypothesis Significance Testing Interpreted and Calibrated by Estimating Probabilities of Sign Errors: A Bayes-Frequentist Continuum

2020· article· en· W2994409524 on OpenAlexaff
David R. Bickel

Bibliographic record

VenueThe American Statistician · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistical Methods in Clinical Trials
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBayes factorFrequentist inferencePosterior probabilityBayesian probabilityStatisticsBayes' theoremMathematicsp-valueStatistical hypothesis testingSign (mathematics)Null hypothesisPrior probabilityAlternative hypothesisStatistical powerEconometricsBayesian inferenceMathematical analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Hypothesis tests are conducted not only to determine whether a null hypothesis (H0) is true but also to determine the direction or sign of an effect. A simple estimate of the posterior probability of a sign error is PSE = (1 – PH0)p/2 + PH0, depending only on a two-sided p-value and PH0, an estimate of the posterior probability of H0. A convenient option for PH0 is the posterior probability derived from estimating the Bayes factor to be its e p ln (1/p) lower bound. In that case, PSE depends only on p and an estimate of the prior probability of H0. PSE provides a continuum between significance testing and traditional Bayesian testing. The former effectively assumes the prior probability of H0 is 0, as some statisticians argue. In that case, PSE is equal to a one-sided p-value. (In that sense, PSE is a calibrated p-value.) In traditional Bayesian testing, on the other hand, the prior probability of H0 is at least 50%, which usually brings PSE close to PH0.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.147
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.438
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.853
Threshold uncertainty score0.775

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1470.438
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.002
Bibliometrics0.0080.005
Science and technology studies0.0020.019
Scholarly communication0.0120.013
Open science0.0050.006
Research integrity0.0060.014
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.368
GPT teacher head0.452
Teacher spread0.084 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
DomainMethods
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations9
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe American StatisticianSame topicStatistical Methods in Clinical TrialsFrench-language works237,207