CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 77

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 11 of the 11 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A review of issues about null hypothesis bayesian testing

Tendeiro, Jorge N., Kiers, Henk A. L.·2019·Psychological Methods
DOI 10.1037/met0000221
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/met0000221

Cites

11 of 11 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The BFs that PhyloAcc uses to determine which model best fits the data are known to be sensitive to within-model priors and are therefore somewhat controversial, even for very simple models.

    “o ne potent ia l is s ue i s th at th e B Fs that PhyloAcc uses to determine which m ode l best fits the data are known to be sen sitiv e to within-m ode l priors ( Kass and Raftery 1995 ;Sinharay and Stern 2002 ), and are therefore s ome wha t con troversial ( Ten deiro an d Kiers 2019 ; va n Ravenzwaa ij a nd Wag enmakers 2022 ), ev en for v ery simple m ode ls.”

    From Practical Guidance and Workflows for Identifying Fast Evolving Non-Coding Genomic Elements Using PhyloAcc (2024) · cites this paper as Tendeiro and Kiers 2019

    The indexed Abstract describes a wide range of issues and shortcomings in Bayes-factor testing, supporting the characterization of the approach as somewhat controversial. The available passages do not establish that these issues arise even for very simple models. The within-model-prior sensitivity claim is attached to other citations in the sentence. (LLM, conf=0.76)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Tendeiro, J. N., & Kiers, H. A. L.
ORCID
Tendeiro, Jorge N.
Venue
Psychological Methods
Publisher
American Psychological Association (APA)
Published
2019-12
Volume
24
Issue
6
Pages
774-795
ISSN
  • 1939-1463
  • 1082-989X
DOI
10.1037/met0000221
Cited by
77
References
11
Language
en

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review