Fiducialize statistical significance: transforming<i>p</i>-values into conservative posterior probabilities and Bayes factors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
One remedy to the misuse of p-values transforms them to bounds on Bayes factors. With a prior probability of the null hypothesis, such a bound gives a lower bound on the posterior probability. Unfortunately, knowing a posterior probability is above some number cannot ensure that the null hypothesis is improbable enough to warrant its rejection. For example, if the lower bound is 0.0001, that implies that the posterior probability is at least 0.0001 but does not imply it is lower than 0.05 or even 0.9. A fiducial argument suggests an alternative estimate of the posterior probability that the null hypothesis is true. In the case that the prior probability of the null hypothesis is 50%, the estimated posterior probability is about p(lnp)2 for low p. In other cases, each occurrence of p in the formula is the p-value calibrated by multiplying it by the prior odds of the null hypothesis. In the absence of a prior, p(lnp)2 also serves as an asymptotic Bayes factor. Since the fiducial estimate of the posterior probability is greater than the lower bounds, its use in place of a bound leads to more stringent hypothesis testing. Making that replacement in a rationale for 0.005 as the significance level reduces the level to 0.001.
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 | 0.147 | 0.557 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.024 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.024 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.005 |
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".