Minor Issues Escalated to Critical Levels in Large Samples: A Permutation-Based Fix
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the big data era, the need to reevaluate traditional statistical methods is paramount due to the challenges posed by vast datasets. While larger samples theoretically enhance accuracy and hypothesis testing power without increasing false positives, practical concerns about inflated Type-I errors persist. The prevalent belief is that larger samples can uncover subtle effects, necessitating dual consideration of p-value and effect size. Yet, the reliability of p-values from large samples remains debated. This paper warns that larger samples can exacerbate minor issues into significant errors, leading to false conclusions. Through our simulation study, we demonstrate how growing sample sizes amplify issues arising from two commonly encountered violations of model assumptions in real-world data and lead to incorrect decisions. This underscores the need for vigilant analytical approaches in the era of big data. In response, we introduce a permutation-based test to counterbalance the effects of sample size and assumption discrepancies by neutralizing them between actual and permuted data. We demonstrate that this approach effectively stabilizes nominal Type I error rates across various sample sizes, thereby ensuring robust statistical inferences even amidst breached conventional assumptions in big data. For reproducibility, our R codes are publicly available at: \url{https://github.com/ubcxzhang/bigDataIssue}.
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 | 0.083 | 0.378 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.002 |
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".