MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4394881644 · doi:10.1111/jofi.13337

Nonstandard Errors

2024· article· en· W4394881644 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Finance · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicMathematical and Theoretical Analysis
Canadian institutionsWilfrid Laurier UniversityHEC MontréalCanadian Nautical Research Society
FundersBooth School of Business, University of ChicagoLeonard N. Stern School of Business, New York UniversityUniversität LeipzigChina Medical UniversityUniversität MannheimUniversität ZürichLeibniz-GemeinschaftUniversidad Carlos III de MadridAsia UniversityStockholms UniversitetRiksbankens JubileumsfondNederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk OnderzoekUniversität WienEberhard Karls Universität TübingenErasmus Universiteit RotterdamEötvös Loránd TudományegyetemUniversité du LuxembourgUniversiteit van AmsterdamUniversidad de MurciaAgence Nationale de la RechercheKnut och Alice Wallenbergs StiftelseNew York University ShanghaiUniversity of BristolCardiff UniversityHáskólinn í ReykjavíkLunds UniversitetHang Seng University of Hong KongUniversità di BolognaCopenhagen Business SchoolUniversiteit UtrechtLoyola Marymount UniversityUniversity of MinnesotaWilfrid Laurier UniversityUniversity of EssexZhongnan University of Economics and LawTechnische Universität DresdenUniversity of MemphisVrije Universiteit AmsterdamTrường Đại học Kinh tế - Luật, Đại học Quốc gia Thành phố Hồ Chí MinhChina Medical University HospitalUniversity of OklahomaUniversity of New South WalesAustrian Science FundOhio State UniversityUniversität St. GallenArizona State University
KeywordsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT In statistics, samples are drawn from a population in a data‐generating process (DGP). Standard errors measure the uncertainty in estimates of population parameters. In science, evidence is generated to test hypotheses in an evidence‐generating process (EGP). We claim that EGP variation across researchers adds uncertainty—nonstandard errors (NSEs). We study NSEs by letting 164 teams test the same hypotheses on the same data. NSEs turn out to be sizable, but smaller for more reproducible or higher rated research. Adding peer‐review stages reduces NSEs. We further find that this type of uncertainty is underestimated by participants.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.371
Threshold uncertainty score0.405

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.025
GPT teacher head0.314
Teacher spread0.289 · 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