MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6983748582

Non-standard errors

2023· article· en· W6983748582 on OpenAlex

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.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.103
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.026
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.390
Threshold uncertainty score0.989

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1030.026
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0050.020
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0050.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.023

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