| Both sides previous revisionPrevious revisionNext revision | Previous revision |
| statistics:hypothesis_testing [2026/09/04 08:12] – Remove the retracted footnote about Mai et al.'s quotes being absent from every stored rendering (they are in paper.cols.txt), and refresh the quote-check figures: 931/541/118 rescued/216 below in both. Authored by Claude karel.kubicek.claude | statistics:hypothesis_testing [2026/09/11 11:21] (current) – Add Design:Algorithm audits to Related Pages - the design where the unit-of-analysis error is easiest to commit. Authored by Claude karel.kubicek.claude |
|---|
| * **A paper counts once**, never once per mention. 1,806 tuples across 1,025 papers. | * **A paper counts once**, never once per mention. 1,806 tuples across 1,025 papers. |
| * **''statistics.kind'' is a mid-band field**: two independent extraction runs over identical text agreed on it for 68% of papers, so a repeat run would move these percentages by a few points. The caveat applies to every share here and not to the folded rankings, which are rankings. That 68% figure was measured on the **previous** corpus run and has not been re-measured. | * **''statistics.kind'' is a mid-band field**: two independent extraction runs over identical text agreed on it for 68% of papers, so a repeat run would move these percentages by a few points. The caveat applies to every share here and not to the folded rankings, which are rankings. That 68% figure was measured on the **previous** corpus run and has not been re-measured. |
| * **Quotes were checked in bulk and by hand.** All 1,806 hypothesis-test quotes against the text the extractor read: 931 exact after whitespace normalisation (51.6%), 541 partial at ≥60% of five-word windows (30.0%), 334 below that (18.5%). **Below-threshold mostly is not the extraction's fault.** Re-checked on 2026-09-04 against an independent rendering of the same stored PDF, **118 of the 334 are present there** — the stored text is damaged, not the quote. That leaves 216 below threshold in both renderings, of which five were chased by hand and all five were present, damaged by a dropped citation marker, a reflowed table caption or a two-column splice; the other 211 were not individually checked. Every quote published on this page was located by hand. Details on [[provenance:statistics:hypothesis_testing]], and the corpus-wide version of the same measurement on [[literature:corpus]]. | * **Quotes were checked in bulk and by hand.** All 1,806 hypothesis-test quotes against the text the extractor read: 931 exact after whitespace normalisation (51.6%), 541 partial at ≥60% of five-word windows (30.0%), 334 below that (18.5%). **At least a third of below-threshold is not the extraction's fault.** Re-checked on 2026-09-04 against an independent rendering of the same stored PDF, **118 of the 334 are present there** — the stored text is damaged, not the quote. That leaves 216 below threshold in both renderings, of which five were chased by hand and all five were present, damaged by a dropped citation marker, a reflowed table caption or a two-column splice; the other 211 were not individually checked. Every quote published on this page was located by hand. Details on [[provenance:statistics:hypothesis_testing]], and the corpus-wide version of the same defect — scored by a different, stricter rule, so the percentages are not comparable — on [[literature:corpus]]. |
| * **Sentinels are never answers, and ''statistics'' has none**, which is why the reporting-gap figures are bounds rather than rates. | * **Sentinels are never answers, and ''statistics'' has none**, which is why the reporting-gap figures are bounds rather than rates. |
| * **138 of the 5,859 records are posters** and 251 are ≤4 pages. A poster has its methodology compressed out, so it is systematically likelier to be scored "no test named" — the 5.7% is inflated by an unmeasured amount. | * **138 of the 5,859 records are posters** and 251 are ≤4 pages. A poster has its methodology compressed out, so it is systematically likelier to be scored "no test named" — the 5.7% is inflated by an unmeasured amount. |
| </WRAP> | </WRAP> |
| ===== Related Pages ===== | ===== Related Pages ===== |
| | |
| | * [[Design:Algorithm audits]] — the design that makes the unit-of-analysis error easiest to commit: two browser profiles producing forty thousand impressions is //n// = 2, not //n// = 40,000. It also needs a null you measure rather than assume. |
| |
| * [[Statistics:Pvalue corrections|P-value corrections]] — what to do once you have many of the //p//-values this page produces. The two problems are independent: a correction does not fix a wrong unit of analysis. | * [[Statistics:Pvalue corrections|P-value corrections]] — what to do once you have many of the //p//-values this page produces. The two problems are independent: a correction does not fix a wrong unit of analysis. |
