Navigating the Bayes maze: The psychologist's guide to Bayesian statistics, a hands‐on tutorial with R code
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Bayesian statistics has gained substantial popularity in the social sciences, particularly in psychology. Despite its growing prominence in the psychological literature, many researchers remain unacquainted with Bayesian methods and their advantages. This tutorial addresses the needs of curious applied psychology researchers and introduces Bayesian analysis as an accessible and powerful tool. We begin by comparing Bayesian and frequentist approaches, redefining fundamental terms from both perspectives with practical illustrations. Our exploration of Bayesian statistics includes Bayes's Theorem, likelihood, prior and posterior distributions, various prior types, and Markov-Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) methods, supplemented by graphical aids for clarity. To bridge theory and practice, we employ a psychological research example with real, open data. We analyse the data using both frequentist and Bayesian approaches, providing R code and comprehensive supporting information, and emphasising best practices for interpretation and reporting. We discuss and demonstrate how to interpret parameter estimates and credible intervals, among other essential topics. Throughout, we maintain an accessible and user-friendly language, focusing on practical implications, intuitive examples, and actionable recommendations.
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 | 0.008 | 0.062 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.133 | 0.106 |
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".