MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4251206885 · doi:10.35542/osf.io/j4rdv

Null Hypothesis Significance Testing: A Brief Review

2021· review· en· W4251206885 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.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typereview
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Statistical Modeling Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNull hypothesisPsychologyInterpretation (philosophy)Statistical hypothesis testingEconometricsStatisticsComputer scienceMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Null hypothesis significance testing (NHST) dominates the interpretation of quantitative data analysis in education, psychology, and other social science fields (Shaver, 1993). Meanwhile, the use of NHST has been under enduring and intense criticisms (Carver, 1978; Cohen, 1997; Cumming, 2013; Thompson, 1993, 1996, 1999). In 2015, the journal, Basic and Applied Social Psychology (BASP; Trafimow & Marks, 2015) banned the use of NHST, reigniting another round of intense discussions about whether continue using the NHST technique. In the present paper, I have elaborated the definition of NHST and six most commonmisinterpretations/false beliefs, and suggested reporting strategies, including reporting effect size along with its interval estimates. Finally, I briefly commented on the causes of misconceptions

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.924
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.001
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 head0.215
GPT teacher head0.391
Teacher spread0.175 · 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

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAdvanced Statistical Modeling TechniquesFrench-language works237,207