Collision between biological process and statistical analysis revealed by mean-centering
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Animal ecologists often collect hierarchically-structured data and analyze these with linear mixed-effects models. Specific complications arise when the effect sizes of covariates vary on multiple levels (e.g., within vs among subjects). Mean-centering of covariates within subjects offers a useful approach in such situations, but is not without problems. A statistical model represents a hypothesis about the underlying biological process. Mean-centering within clusters assumes that the lower level responses (e.g. within subjects) depend on the deviation from the subject mean (relative) rather than on absolute values of the covariate. This may or may not be biologically realistic. We show that mismatch between the nature of the generating (i.e., biological) process and the form of the statistical analysis produce major conceptual and operational challenges for empiricists. We explored the consequences of mismatches by simulating data with three response-generating processes differing in the source of correlation between a covariate and the response. These data were then analyzed by three different analysis equations. We asked how robustly different analysis equations estimate key parameters of interest and under which circumstances biases arise. Mismatches between generating and analytical equations created several intractable problems for estimating key parameters. The most widely misestimated parameter was the among-subject variance in response. We found that no single analysis equation was robust in estimating all parameters generated by all equations. Importantly, even when response-generating and analysis equations matched mathematically, bias in some parameters arose when sampling across the range of the covariate was limited. Our results have general implications for how we collect and analyze data. They also remind us more generally that conclusions from statistical analysis of data are conditional on a hypothesis, sometimes implicit, for the process(es) that generated the attributes we measure. We discuss strategies for real data analysis in face of uncertainty about the underlying biological process.
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 | 0.099 | 0.345 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".