MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4401706460 · doi:10.1177/00236772241246602

Ditching the norm: Using alternative distributions for biological data analysis

2024· article· en· W4401706460 on OpenAlexaff
Stanley E. Lazic

Bibliographic record

VenueLaboratory Animals · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistical Methods in Clinical Trials
Canadian institutionsPrioris.ai (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceParametric statisticsData miningSoftwareData scienceStatisticsMathematicsProgramming language

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Most classical statistical tests assume data are normally distributed. If this assumption is not met, researchers often turn to non-parametric methods. These methods have some drawbacks, and if no suitable non-parametric test exists, a normal distribution may be used inappropriately instead. A better option is to select a distribution appropriate for the data from dozens available in modern software packages. Selecting a distribution that represents the data generating process is a crucial but overlooked step in analysing data. This paper discusses several alternative distributions and the types of data that they are suitable for.

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)0.059
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.244
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 score0.941
Threshold uncertainty score0.314

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0590.244
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.003
Bibliometrics0.0060.006
Science and technology studies0.0020.008
Scholarly communication0.0060.009
Open science0.0040.006
Research integrity0.0030.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.003

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 head0.829
GPT teacher head0.639
Teacher spread0.190 · 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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLaboratory AnimalsSame topicStatistical Methods in Clinical TrialsFrench-language works237,207