Kernel Regression Coefficients for Practical Significance
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
Quantitative researchers often use Student’s t-test (and its p-values) to claim that a particular regressor is important (statistically significantly) for explaining the variation in a response variable. A study is subject to the p-hacking problem when its author relies too much on formal statistical significance while ignoring the size of what is at stake. We suggest reporting estimates using nonlinear kernel regressions and the standardization of all variables to avoid p-hacking. We are filling an essential gap in the literature because p-hacking-related papers do not even mention kernel regressions or standardization. Although our methods have general applicability in all sciences, our illustrations refer to risk management for a cross-section of firms and financial management in macroeconomic time series. We estimate nonlinear, nonparametric kernel regressions for both examples to illustrate the computation of scale-free generalized partial correlation coefficients (GPCCs). We suggest supplementing the usual p-values by “practical significance” revealed by scale-free GPCCs. We show that GPCCs also yield new pseudo regression coefficients to measure each regressor’s relative (nonlinear) contribution in a kernel regression.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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