Effect sizes for equivalence testing: Incorporating the equivalence interval
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Equivalence testing (ET) is a framework for determining if an effect is small enough to be considered meaningless, wherein meaningless is expressed as an equivalence interval (EI). Although traditional effect sizes (ESs) are important accompaniments to ET, these measures exclude information about the EI. Incorporating the EI is valuable for quantifying how far the effect is from the EI bounds. The proportional distance (PD) from an observed effect to the smallest effect that would render it meaningful is proposed as an ES measure for ET. We conducted two Monte Carlo simulations to evaluate the PD when applied to (1) mean differences and (2) correlations. The coverage rate and bias of the PD were excellent within the investigated conditions. We also applied the PD to two recent psychological studies. These applied examples revealed the beneficial properties of the PD, namely its ability to supply information above and beyond other statistical tests and ESs.
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 | 0.197 | 0.646 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
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.
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".