MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3190043208 · doi:10.1037/met0000678

Why multiple hypothesis test corrections provide poor control of false positives in the real world.

2024· article· en· W3190043208 on OpenAlexaff
Stanley E. Lazic

Bibliographic record

VenuePsychological Methods · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicMeta-analysis and systematic reviews
Canadian institutionsPrioris.ai (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFalse positive paradoxStatistical hypothesis testingFalse positives and false negativesStatisticsTest (biology)EconometricsPsychologyMultiple comparisons problemStatistical analysisControl (management)MathematicsArtificial intelligenceComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

value adjustments. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.319
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.835
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.681
Threshold uncertainty score0.840

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.3190.835
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.005
Bibliometrics0.0080.011
Science and technology studies0.0020.009
Scholarly communication0.0050.009
Open science0.0090.004
Research integrity0.0050.011
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0140.003

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 head0.737
GPT teacher head0.612
Teacher spread0.126 · 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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
DomainMethods
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

Citations4
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePsychological MethodsSame topicMeta-analysis and systematic reviewsFrench-language works237,207