MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4393251384 · doi:10.20982/tqmp.20.1.p057

A Compendium of Common Heuristics, Misconceptions, and Biased Reasoning used in Statistical Thinking

2024· article· en· W4393251384 on OpenAlexaff
Tracy Husereau, Denis Cousineau, Shuo Zang, Rose-Marie Gibeau

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Quantitative Methods for Psychology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistics Education and Methodologies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCompendiumHeuristicsComputer scienceManagement scienceEngineeringPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Over the past decades, many researchers have identified ways of reasoning in the domain of statistics and probabilities that do not match statistics and probabilities results. Some of these inadequate conceptualizations are reviewed herein. They include, among others, the gambler's fallacy, the law of small numbers, the misunderstanding of randomness, and they touch various aspects of statistics reasoning (sampling procedures, probability estimation, mean estimation, variance estimation, and inference). A classification is put forward.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.037
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.096
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.963
Threshold uncertainty score0.196

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0370.096
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0110.008
Science and technology studies0.0050.033
Scholarly communication0.0120.017
Open science0.0040.005
Research integrity0.0050.015
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.457
GPT teacher head0.643
Teacher spread0.186 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
DomainMethods
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Quantitative Methods for PsychologySame topicStatistics Education and MethodologiesFrench-language works237,207