Spatial Autocorrelation and Inferential Tests
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The presence of autocorrelation in data violates the usual assumption of independence in the data for evaluating inferential statistics. We describe several models of autocorrelation in spatial data (both positive and negative). Given two serial variables, x and y , autocorrelation observed in y can be due to inherent autoregression in the variable itself, autoregression induced by its dependence on x , which has its own autocorrelation, or doubly autoregressive , with autocorrelation in both variables. This effect can be addressed by estimating the effective sample size (number of independent observations equivalent in information content to the n that are autocorrelated). We present the calculation of the effective sample size for many inferential statistics, including correlation, partial correlation, t -tests and ANOVA. The use of restricted randomization is explained as a method for testing when other approaches are not available. We also provide recommendations for sampling and experimental design in the presence of spatial autocorrelation.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it