MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3153031932

re:Linde et al. (2021) -- The Bayes factor, HDI-ROPE and frequentist equivalence testing are actually all equivalent

2021· preprint· en· W3153031932 on OpenAlexaff
Harlan Campbell, Paul Gustafson

Bibliographic record

VenuearXiv (Cornell University) · 2021
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistical Methods in Clinical Trials
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFrequentist inferenceBayes factorEquivalence (formal languages)Bayesian probabilityStatisticsMathematicsBayes' theoremRopeCredible intervalNull hypothesisEconometricsApplied mathematicsBayesian inferenceAlgorithmDiscrete mathematics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Following an extensive simulation study comparing the operating characteristics of three different procedures used for establishing equivalence (the frequentist `TOST, the Bayesian and the Bayes factor interval null procedure), Linde et al. (2021) conclude with the recommendation that researchers rely more on the Bayes factor interval null approach for quantifying evidence for We redo the simulation study of Linde et al. (2021) in its entirety but with the different procedures calibrated to have the same predetermined maximum type 1 error rate. Our results suggest that the Bayes Factor, HDI-ROPE, and frequentist equivalence testing are all essentially equivalent when it comes to predicting equivalence.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.070
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 score0.346
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.070
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.722
GPT teacher head0.425
Teacher spread0.297 · 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
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuearXiv (Cornell University)Same topicStatistical Methods in Clinical TrialsFrench-language works237,207