Bibliographic record
Abstract
Analyses of frequencies are commonly done using a chi-square test. This test, derived from a normal approximation, is deemed generally efficient (controlling type-I error rates fairly well and having good statistical power). However, in the case of factorial designs, it is difficult to decompose a total test statistic into additive interaction effects and main effects. Herein, we present an alternative test based on the G statistic. The test has similar type-I error rates and power as the former one. However, it is based on a total statistic that is naturally decomposed additively into interaction effects, main effects, simple effects, contrast effects, etc., mimicking precisely the logic of ANOVAs. We call this set of tools ANOFA (Analysis of Frequency data) to highlight its similarities with ANOVA. We also examine how to render plots of frequencies along with confidence intervals. Finally, quantifying effect sizes and planning statistical power are described under this framework. The ANOFA is a tool that assesses the significance of effects instead of the significance of parameters; as such, it is more intuitive to most researchers than alternative approaches based on generalized linear models.
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 | 0.051 | 0.142 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.006 |
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".