MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3217612029 · doi:10.1002/cjs.11719

Let's practice what we preach: Planning and interpreting simulation studies with design and analysis of experiments

2022· article· en· W3217612029 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Statistics · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicOptimal Experimental Design Methods
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser UniversityAcadia University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsRobustness (evolution)Fractional factorial designFactorial experimentComputer scienceTaguchi methodsMain effectDesign of experimentsVariance (accounting)Factorial analysisVariety (cybernetics)PopulationManagement scienceIndustrial engineeringMathematicsStatisticsMachine learningEngineeringArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Statisticians recommend design and analysis of experiments (DAE) for evidence‐based research but often use tables to present their own simulation studies. Could DAE do better? We outline how DAE methods can be used to plan and analyze simulation studies. Tools for planning include cause‐and‐effect diagrams and factorial and fractional factorial designs. Analysis is carried out via analysis of variance, main effect and interaction plots, and other DAE tools. We also demonstrate how Taguchi robust parameter design can be used to study the robustness of methods to a variety of uncontrollable population parameters.

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 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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.558
Threshold uncertainty score0.501

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.299
GPT teacher head0.490
Teacher spread0.191 · 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