p < 0,05, ¿Criterio mágico para resolver cualquier problema o leyenda urbana?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hypothesis testing is a well-known procedure for data analysis widely used in scientific papers but, at the same time, strongly criticized and its use questioned and restricted in some cases due to inconsistencies observed from their application. This issue is analyzed in this paper on the basis of the fundamentals of the statistical methodology and the different approaches that have been historically developed to solve the problem of statistical hypothesis analysis highlighting a not well known point: the P value is a random variable. The fundamentals of Fisher´s, Neyman-Pearson´s and Bayesian´s solutions are analyzed and based on them, the inconsistency of the commonly used procedure of determining a p value, compare it to a type I error value (usually 0.05) and get a conclusion is discussed and, on their basis, inconsistencies of the data analysis procedure are identified, procedure consisting in the identification of a P value, the comparison of the P-value with a type-I error value –whichis usually considered to be 0.05– and upon this the decision on the conclusions of the analysis. Additionally, recommendations on thebest way to proceed when solving a problem are presented, as well as the methodological and teaching challenges to be faced when analyzing correctly the data and determining the validity of the hypotheses.Key words: Neyman-Pearson's hypothesis tests, Fisher's significance tests, Bayesian hypothesis tests, Vancouver norms, P-value, null-hypothesis.
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 | 0.043 | 0.192 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 0.005 |
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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".