A Survey of Tasks and Visualizations in Multiverse Analysis Reports
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Analysing data from experiments is a complex, multi‐step process, often with multiple defensible choices available at each step. While analysts often report a single analysis without documenting how it was chosen, this can cause serious transparency and methodological issues. To make the sensitivity of analysis results to analytical choices transparent, some statisticians and methodologists advocate the use of ‘multiverse analysis’: reporting the full range of outcomes that result from all combinations of defensible analytic choices. Summarizing this combinatorial explosion of statistical results presents unique challenges; several approaches to visualizing the output of multiverse analyses have been proposed across a variety of fields (e.g. psychology, statistics, economics, neuroscience). In this article, we (1) introduce a consistent conceptual framework and terminology for multiverse analyses that can be applied across fields; (2) identify the tasks researchers try to accomplish when visualizing multiverse analyses and (3) classify multiverse visualizations into ‘archetypes’, assessing how well each archetype supports each task. Our work sets a foundation for subsequent research on developing visualization tools and techniques to support multiverse analysis and its reporting.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.121 | 0.429 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.018 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.019 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".