MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4241051692 · doi:10.31234/osf.io/d254c

Statistical Software Use in Canadian University Courses: Current Trends and Future Directions

2019· preprint· en· W4241051692 on OpenAlexaffabout
Robert A. Cribbie, Heather Davidson, Yasaman Jabbari, Heather Patton, Kevin S. Peters, Fergal O’Hagan

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistics Education and Methodologies
Canadian institutionsTrent UniversityYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStatistical softwareSoftwareComputer scienceStatistical analysisSoftware analyticsData scienceSoftware peer reviewSoftware packagePoint (geometry)Computational statisticsSoftware engineeringStatisticsMathematics educationSoftware constructionSoftware developmentPsychologyMathematicsMachine learningProgramming language

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Two controversial topics related to the teaching of statistics to psychology students are (a) when to introduce statistical software and (b) which statistical software package to use. The current research looked at the use of statistical software in statistics classes from every university with a psychology program in Canada. Researchers collected data from 321 statistics courses offered to psychology students at 65 Canadian universities and coded the type of statistical software used (if any) in each course. Results show that slightly more than half of all universities introduce software at the introductory level. Point-and-click software is most popular, particularly SPSS. There is a considerable amount of variability in when and which software is introduced to students. Departments can use these data to inform their own practices.

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)0.079
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.210
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.935
Threshold uncertainty score0.472

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0790.210
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0180.033
Science and technology studies0.0060.011
Scholarly communication0.0090.007
Open science0.0090.005
Research integrity0.0020.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.159
GPT teacher head0.409
Teacher spread0.251 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicStatistics Education and MethodologiesFrench-language works237,207