multiverse: Multiplexing Alternative Data Analyses in R Notebooks
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
There are myriad ways to analyze any given dataset. But which one to trust? In the face of such uncertainty, analysts adopt multiverse analysis: running all reasonable analyses on the dataset. Yet this is cognitively and technically difficult with existing tools—how does one specify and execute all combinations of reasonable analyses of a dataset?—and often requires discarding existing workflows. We present multiverse, a tool for implementing multiverse analyses in R with expressive syntax supporting existing computational notebook workflows. Informed by iterative user testing, multiverse supports building up a multiverse through local changes to a single analysis and optimises execution by pruning redundant computations. We evaluate four existing multiverse tools (including multiverse) using principles of cognitive ergonomics.We identify design tradeoffs (e.g. flexibility in locally defining decisions versus making it easy to understand a multiverse’s global structure), and suggest future directions for multiverse tool design, like more effective debugging support.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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