MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402761393 · doi:10.1177/00236772241247106

Understanding <i>p</i> -values and significance

2024· article· en· W4402761393 on OpenAlexaff
Naomi Altman, Martin Krzywinski

Bibliographic record

VenueLaboratory Animals · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicMeta-analysis and systematic reviews
Canadian institutionsCanada's Michael Smith Genome Sciences Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSelection (genetic algorithm)Interpretation (philosophy)Computer scienceStatisticsMultiple comparisons problemSelection biasEconometricsData scienceMathematicsMachine learning

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

P-values combined with estimates of effect size are used to assess the importance of experimental results. However, their interpretation can be invalidated by selection bias when testing multiple hypotheses, fitting multiple models or even informally selecting results that seem interesting after observing the data. We offer an introduction to principled uses of p-values (targeted at the non-specialist) and identify questionable practices to be avoided.

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)0.333
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.759
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.667
Threshold uncertainty score0.822

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.3330.759
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0040.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0110.015
Bibliometrics0.0210.017
Science and technology studies0.0020.019
Scholarly communication0.0130.009
Open science0.0110.007
Research integrity0.0130.022
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0360.009

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 head0.781
GPT teacher head0.509
Teacher spread0.272 · 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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
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

Citations4
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLaboratory AnimalsSame topicMeta-analysis and systematic reviewsFrench-language works237,207