Multiplicity Control vs Replication
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper presents a side-by-side consideration of multiplicity control procedures and replication as solutions to the problem of multiplicity. Several independent theoretical arguments are presented which demonstrate that replication serves several important functions, and that multiplicity control procedures have a number of serious flaws. Subsequently, the results of a simulation study are provided, showing that under typical conditions, replication provides similar familywise error control and power as multiplicity control procedures. Taken together, these theoretical and statistical arguments lead to the conclusion that researchers who are concerned about the problem of multiplicity should shift their attention away from multiplicity control procedures and towards increased use of replication.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.391 | 0.679 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.035 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.020 |
| Open science | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.002 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier 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".