BZPEERReading, trust and collaboration for research
Menu

Discover

GraphFollow connections around a paper, topic or saved view.

Workspaces

HomePick up where your research flow left off.InboxHandle requests, replies and notifications from one place.CollectionsCurate reading lists, evidence sets and shareable dossiers.ResearchSee your private provenance graph, trail and imports.CollaborationMove from discovery into focused discussion rooms.PublishDraft, preview and publish full-text research articles.

Network

ExpertsFind specialists worth following or asking for help.CommunitiesJoin research circles organized around shared work.PartnersSee external organizations active around the same topics.

Opportunities

ListingsBrowse roles, calls and collaborations with clearer fit signals.

Account

Log inReturn to your reading and collaboration workspace.Create accountStart saving work, following people and joining teams.
Log inCreate account

Researcher profile

Bruce A. Corliss

Bruce A. Corliss contributes to research discovery and scholarly infrastructure.

ResearcherAffiliation not importedOpen to collaborate
MethodologyQuantitative Methods

Trust snapshot

Quick read

Trust 13 - UnverifiedVerification L1Unclaimed author
2works
0followers
2topics
4close collaborators

Actions

Decide how to stay connected

Follow researcher0

Identity and collaboration

How to connect with this researcher

Claiming links this public author record to a researcher profile and unlocks direct collaboration workflows.

Log in to claim

Direct collaboration

Open a focused conversation when the fit is right

Claim this author entity first to unlock direct invitations.

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent work, topics, institutions and collaborators without jumping out to a separate graph page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Published work

2 published item(s)

preprint2022arXiv

The Least Difference in Means: A Statistic for Effect Size Strength and Practical Significance

With limited resources, scientific inquiries must be prioritized for further study, funding, and translation based on their practical significance: whether the effect size is large enough to be meaningful in the real world. Doing so must evaluate a result's effect strength, defined as a conservative assessment of practical significance. We propose the least difference in means ($δ_L$) as a two-sample statistic that can quantify effect strength and perform a hypothesis test to determine if a result has a meaningful effect size. To facilitate consensus, $δ_L$ allows scientists to compare effect strength between related results and choose different thresholds for hypothesis testing without recalculation. Both $δ_L$ and the relative $δ_L$ outperform other candidate statistics in identifying results with higher effect strength. We use real data to demonstrate how the relative $δ_L$ compares effect strength across broadly related experiments. The relative $δ_L$ can prioritize research based on the strength of their results.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2022arXiv

The Most Difference in Means: A Statistic for the Strength of Null and Near-Zero Results

Statistical insignificance does not suggest the absence of effect, yet scientists must often use null results as evidence of negligible (near-zero) effect size to falsify scientific hypotheses. Doing so must assess a result's null strength, defined as the evidence for a negligible effect size. Such an assessment would differentiate strong null results that suggest a negligible effect size from weak null results that suggest a broad range of potential effect sizes. We propose the most difference in means ($δ_M$) as a two-sample statistic that can both quantify null strength and perform a hypothesis test for negligible effect size. To facilitate consensus when interpreting results, our statistic allows scientists to conclude that a result has negligible effect size using different thresholds with no recalculation required. To assist with selecting a threshold, $δ_M$ can also compare null strength between related results. Both $δ_M$ and the relative form of $δ_M$ outperform other candidate statistics in comparing null strength. We compile broadly related results and use the relative $δ_M$ to compare null strength across different treatments, measurement methods, and experiment models. Reporting the relative $δ_M$ may provide a technical solution to the file drawer problem by encouraging the publication of null and near-zero results.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access