The case for the curve: Parametric regression with second- and third-order polynomial functions of predictors should be routine.
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Polynomial regression is an old and commonly discussed modeling technique, though recommendations for its usage are widely variable. Here, we make the case that polynomial regression with second- and third-order terms should be part of every applied practitioners standard model-building toolbox, and should be taught to new students of the subject as the default technique to model nonlinearity. We argue that polynomial regression is superior to nonparametric alternatives for nonstatisticians due to its ease of interpretation, flexibility, and its nonreliance on sophisticated mathematics, like knots and kernel smoothing. This makes it the ideal default for nonstatisticians interested in building realistic models that can capture global as well as local effects of predictors on a response variable. Low-order polynomial regression can effectively model compact floor and ceiling effects, local linearity, and prevent inferring the presence of spurious interaction effects between distinct predictors when none are present. We also argue that the case against polynomial regression is largely specious, relying on either misconceptions around the method, strawman arguments, or historical artifacts. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it