Confusion Over Measures of Evidence (p's) Versus Errors (α's) in Classical Statistical Testing¶
Hubbard, & Bayarri. (2003). Confusion Over Measures of Evidence (*p*'s) Versus Errors (*α*'s) in Classical Statistical Testing. The American Statistician.
Cited by¶
1 citation across 1 artifact.
Domain-specific¶
- Null Ritual
- The hybrid procedure the ritual performs is itself historically anomalous — it fuses Fisher's p-value significance test, which is a continuous measure of evidence against a null requiring no alternative and no decision, with the Neyman–Pearson framework of two competing hypotheses, error-rate control, and a decision rule, two frameworks whose architects each denied their compatibility
Supported in partVerified against the source
- The hybrid procedure the ritual performs is itself historically anomalous — it fuses Fisher's p-value significance test, which is a continuous measure of evidence against a null requiring no alternative and no decision, with the Neyman–Pearson framework of two competing hypotheses, error-rate control, and a decision rule, two frameworks whose architects each denied their compatibility
Verification¶
Does it exist? Not checked yet. This work's DOI is recorded above but has not been resolved against an external catalogue, so nothing here confirms the work exists.
Does it back the claim? Read against the text for 1 of 1 citation: 1 supported in part. Each verdict is shown under its citation below, with what in the work backs the sentence.
Support is checked per citation rather than per work — the same source can be cited soundly in one article and wrongly in another. Per-citation recording began recently, so a citation with no recorded check is a gap in the record rather than evidence it went unchecked.
See how references were verified.
Registry ID ref:8d3539d2cdb9 · see in the full table