Bibliographic record
Abstract
In recent years, the replicability of original findings published in psychology journals has been questioned. A key concern is that selection for significance inflates observed effect sizes and observed power. If selection bias is severe, replication studies are unlikely to reproduce a significant result. We introduce z-curve as a new method that can estimate the average true power for sets of studies that are selected for significance. We compare this method with p-curve, which has been used for the same purpose. Simulation studies show that both methods perform well when all studies have the same power, but p-curve overestimates power if power varies across studies. Based on these findings, we recommend z-curve to estimate power for sets of studies that are heterogeneous and selected for significance. Application of z-curve to various datasets suggests that the average replicability of published results in psychology is approximately 50%, but there is substantial heterogeneity and many psychological studies remain underpowered and are likely to produce false negative results. To increase replicability and credibility of published results it is important to reduce selection bias and to increase statistical power.
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 | 0.062 | 0.354 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.036 | 0.013 |
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".