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
Summary This paper proposes general methods for the problem of multiple testing of a single hypothesis, with a standard goal of combining a number of $p$-values without making any assumptions about their dependence structure. A result by Rüschendorf (1982) and, independently, Meng (1993) implies that the $p$-values can be combined by scaling up their arithmetic mean by a factor of 2, and no smaller factor is sufficient in general. A similar result by Mattner about the geometric mean replaces 2 by e. Based on more recent developments in mathematical finance, specifically, robust risk aggregation techniques, we extend these results to generalized means; in particular, we show that $K$ $p$-values can be combined by scaling up their harmonic mean by a factor of $\log K$ asymptotically as $K$ tends to infinity. This leads to a generalized version of the Bonferroni–Holm procedure. We also explore methods using weighted averages of $p$-values. Finally, we discuss the efficiency of various methods of combining $p$-values and how to choose a suitable method in light of data and prior information.
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 | 0.002 | 0.113 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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