MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415902771 · doi:10.1017/s1049023x25101465

The Misuse of Normality Tests as Gatekeepers for Research in Prehospital and Disaster Medicine

2025· article· en· W4415902771 on OpenAlexaff
Jeffrey Michael Franc

Bibliographic record

VenuePrehospital and Disaster Medicine · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicMeta-analysis and systematic reviews
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNormalityParametric statisticsTest (biology)Disaster medicineStatistical analysisStatistical hypothesis testingNonparametric statistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This editorial discusses the common practice of using normality tests as a preliminary step for choosing between parametric and non-parametric methods. The editorial argues that such pre-testing is theoretically unfounded and practically harmful, as parametric tests are robust to moderate deviations from normality, while reliance on normality tests can distort error rates and mislead researchers.

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)0.151
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.526
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.849
Threshold uncertainty score0.801

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1510.526
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.004
Bibliometrics0.0060.004
Science and technology studies0.0040.017
Scholarly communication0.0120.009
Open science0.0070.004
Research integrity0.0160.029
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.002

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 head0.660
GPT teacher head0.598
Teacher spread0.062 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePrehospital and Disaster MedicineSame topicMeta-analysis and systematic reviewsFrench-language works237,207