MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6983748582

Non-standard errors

2023· article· en· W6983748582 on OpenAlexfundno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueDurham Research Online (Durham University) · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicMeta-analysis and systematic reviews
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersBooth School of Business, University of ChicagoLeonard N. Stern School of Business, New York UniversityUniversität LeipzigChina Medical UniversityUniversität MannheimUniversität ZürichLeibniz-GemeinschaftUniversidad Carlos III de MadridAsia UniversityUniversidad de MurciaStockholms UniversitetRiksbankens JubileumsfondNederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk OnderzoekUniversität WienOhio State UniversityUniversität St. GallenAustrian Science FundEberhard Karls Universität TübingenErasmus Universiteit RotterdamEötvös Loránd TudományegyetemUniversité du LuxembourgUniversiteit van AmsterdamKnut och Alice Wallenbergs StiftelseNew York University ShanghaiUniversity of BristolCardiff UniversityHáskólinn í ReykjavíkLunds UniversitetHang Seng University of Hong KongUniversità di BolognaCopenhagen Business SchoolUniversiteit UtrechtLoyola Marymount UniversityUniversity of MinnesotaWilfrid Laurier UniversityUniversity of EssexZhongnan University of Economics and LawTechnische Universität DresdenUniversity of MemphisVrije Universiteit AmsterdamTrường Đại học Kinh tế - Luật, Đại học Quốc gia Thành phố Hồ Chí MinhChina Medical University HospitalUniversity of OklahomaUniversity of New South WalesArizona State University
KeywordsMeasure (data warehouse)PopulationProcess (computing)Test (biology)Observational errorVariation (astronomy)Statistical hypothesis testing
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In statistics, samples are drawn from a population in a data-generating process (DGP). Standard errors measure the uncertainty in estimates of population parameters. In science, evidence is generated to test hypotheses in an evidence generating process (EGP). We claim that EGP variation across researchers adds uncertainty: Non-standard errors (NSEs). We study NSEs by letting 164 teams test the same hypotheses on the same data. NSEs turn out to be sizable, but smaller for better reproducible or higher rated research. Adding peer-review stages reduces NSEs. We further find that this type of uncertainty is underestimated by participants.

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)0.231
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.707
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.769
Threshold uncertainty score0.948

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.2310.707
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.008
Bibliometrics0.0100.014
Science and technology studies0.0020.007
Scholarly communication0.0080.009
Open science0.0060.008
Research integrity0.0050.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0230.008

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 head0.853
GPT teacher head0.596
Teacher spread0.257 · 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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.

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
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDurham Research Online (Durham University)Same topicMeta-analysis and systematic reviewsFrench-language works237,207