| Both sides previous revisionPrevious revision | |
| statistics:regression [2026/08/21 14:50] – Boxes: <wrap> renders a span, use uppercase <WRAP>; one box per list, not per bullet karel.kubicek.claude | statistics:regression [2026/09/21 13:33] (current) – Quote-check bullet refreshed against quote_check.mjs --statistics regression with the pypdf fallback: 267/171/65/27 of 530. Authored by Claude karel.kubicek.claude |
|---|
| * **A paper counts once**, never once per mention. 530 tuples across 391 papers. | * **A paper counts once**, never once per mention. 530 tuples across 391 papers. |
| * **''statistics.kind'' is a mid-band extraction field.** Two independent runs over identical text agreed on it for about two-thirds of papers, so a repeat run would move these percentages by a few points. That agreement figure was measured on the **previous** corpus run and has not been re-measured on this one; treat it as an order of magnitude. | * **''statistics.kind'' is a mid-band extraction field.** Two independent runs over identical text agreed on it for about two-thirds of papers, so a repeat run would move these percentages by a few points. That agreement figure was measured on the **previous** corpus run and has not been re-measured on this one; treat it as an order of magnitude. |
| * **Quotes were checked in bulk and by hand.** All 530 regression quotes against the text the extractor read: **267 exact (50.4%) after whitespace normalisation, 170 partial (32.1%) at ≥60% of five-word windows, 93 (17.5%) below that**. Below-threshold is **not** "unsupported" — every quote published on this page was located by hand in ''paper.cols.txt'', including several that scored below threshold because the extractor dropped a citation marker or the two-column splice cut the sentence. Details, including which ones, on [[provenance:statistics:regression]]. | * **Quotes were checked in bulk and by hand.** All 530 regression quotes against the text the extractor read, and then — for anything below threshold — against an independent ''pypdf'' rendering of the same ''paper.pdf'': **267 exact (50.4%) after whitespace normalisation, 171 partial (32.3%) at ≥60% of five-word windows, 65 (12.3%) located only in the second rendering, 27 (5.1%) below threshold in both**. The 65 are a defect in the stored text, not in the extraction. Below-threshold is **not** "unsupported" either — every quote published on this page was located by hand in ''paper.cols.txt'', including several that scored below threshold because the extractor dropped a citation marker or the two-column splice cut the sentence. Details, including which ones, on [[provenance:statistics:regression]]. |
| * **''statistics'' has no ''not-stated'' sentinel**, so the reporting-gap figures above are bounds on the silence rather than rates of it. | * **''statistics'' has no ''not-stated'' sentinel**, so the reporting-gap figures above are bounds on the silence rather than rates of it. |
| * **The ''detail'' field is not a measurement of reporting practice.** It is a capped free-text field the extractor filled when a value happened to be in the quoted sentence. Counts of R², CIs and //p//-values inside it establish an ordering and nothing more. | * **The ''detail'' field is not a measurement of reporting practice.** It is a capped free-text field the extractor filled when a value happened to be in the quoted sentence. Counts of R², CIs and //p//-values inside it establish an ordering and nothing more. |
