Crowdsourcing multiverse analyses to explore the impact of different data-processing and analysis decisions: A tutorial.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
When processing and analyzing empirical data, researchers regularly face choices that may appear arbitrary (e.g., how to define and handle outliers). If one chooses to exclusively focus on a particular option and conduct a single analysis, its outcome might be of limited utility. That is, one remains agnostic regarding the generalizability of the results, because plausible alternative paths remain unexplored. A multiverse analysis offers a solution to this issue by exploring the various choices pertaining to data-processing and/or model building, and examining their impact on the conclusion of a study. However, even though multiverse analyses are arguably less susceptible to biases compared to the typical single-pathway approach, it is still possible to selectively add or omit pathways. To address this issue, we outline a novel, more principled approach to conducting multiverse analyses through crowdsourcing. The approach is detailed in a step-by-step tutorial to facilitate its implementation. We also provide a worked-out illustration featuring the Semantic Priming Across Many Languages project, thereby demonstrating its feasibility and its ability to increase objectivity and transparency. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2026 APA, all rights reserved).
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 | 0.018 | 0.047 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.031 | 0.013 |
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".