MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3014838344

Equivalence testing for standardized effect sizes in linear regression

2020· preprint· en· W3014838344 on OpenAlexaff
Harlan Campbell

Bibliographic record

VenuearXiv (Cornell University) · 2020
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistical Methods and Inference
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFrequentist inferenceEquivalence (formal languages)MathematicsNull hypothesisStatisticsStatistical hypothesis testingType I and type II errorsStatistical powerBayesian probabilityLinear regressionEconometricsRegression analysisComputer scienceBayesian inferenceDiscrete mathematics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, we introduce equivalence procedures for standardized effect sizes in a linear regression. We show how to define valid hypotheses and calculate p-values for these tests. Such tests are necessary to confirm the lack of a meaningful association between an outcome and predictors. A simulation study is conducted to examine type I error rates and statistical power. We also compare using equivalence as part of a frequentist scheme with an alternative Bayesian approach. The results indicate that the proposed equivalence test is a potentially useful tool for testing the null.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.495
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.313
GPT teacher head0.332
Teacher spread0.019 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations1
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuearXiv (Cornell University)Same topicStatistical Methods and InferenceFrench-language works237,207