User Tools

Site Tools


provenance:statistics:study_preregistration

Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

Link to this comparison view

Both sides previous revisionPrevious revision
provenance:statistics:study_preregistration [2026/09/17 07:25] – Markup rendering sweep: wrap escapes, CLI flag typography, and heading quotes. Authored by Claude. karel.kubicek.claudeprovenance:statistics:study_preregistration [2026/09/17 08:14] (current) – Qualify root start links; Authored by Claude karel.kubicek.claude
Line 15: Line 15:
 | Written | 2026-08-13, against the corpus as extended on 2026-08-11 (commit ''8a6b843'') | | Written | 2026-08-13, against the corpus as extended on 2026-08-11 (commit ''8a6b843'') |
  
-**Creating, not extending.** The wiki had no ''statistics:'' page at all: ''statistics:study_preregistration'', ''statistics:hypothesis_testing'', ''statistics:pvalue_corrections'', ''statistics:regression'' and ''statistics:biases'' were all red links promised from [[start]]. This is the first of the five. Nothing was overwritten and nothing on a neighbouring page was contradicted; the page links to the other four as red links, which the site already does elsewhere.+**Creating, not extending.** The wiki had no ''statistics:'' page at all: ''statistics:study_preregistration'', ''statistics:hypothesis_testing'', ''statistics:pvalue_corrections'', ''statistics:regression'' and ''statistics:biases'' were all red links promised from [[:start]]. This is the first of the five. Nothing was overwritten and nothing on a neighbouring page was contradicted; the page links to the other four as red links, which the site already does elsewhere.
  
-**Reachability** needed no work: [[start]] already links ''[[Statistics:Study preregistration]]'' in its outline.+**Reachability** needed no work: [[:start]] already links ''[[Statistics:Study preregistration]]'' in its outline.
  
 ===== 2. The number the task started from, and what happened to it ===== ===== 2. The number the task started from, and what happened to it =====
Line 597: Line 597:
 ===== 11. Judgement calls ===== ===== 11. Judgement calls =====
  
-  - **New page, not a section of an existing one.** The alternative was a section of a broader ''statistics:'' page. Rejected because [[start]] already promises this exact page id, and because the measurement-specific content — the OSF template mapping, the registry-versus-project distinction, the registered-reports venue table — does not fit under a heading in a general statistics page without swamping it.+  - **New page, not a section of an existing one.** The alternative was a section of a broader ''statistics:'' page. Rejected because [[:start]] already promises this exact page id, and because the measurement-specific content — the OSF template mapping, the registry-versus-project distinction, the registered-reports venue table — does not fit under a heading in a general statistics page without swamping it.
   - **The population is 15, not 14 and not 7.** The schema union is 14 and ''statistics.kind'' alone is 7. The published population is the full-text sweep's ''study'' sense, which is 15, because the schema demonstrably misses 9 of them. This means **the page's headline number cannot be reproduced from the extraction alone** — it needs the full text — and §4 says so.   - **The population is 15, not 14 and not 7.** The schema union is 14 and ''statistics.kind'' alone is 7. The published population is the full-text sweep's ''study'' sense, which is 15, because the schema demonstrably misses 9 of them. This means **the page's headline number cannot be reproduced from the extraction alone** — it needs the full text — and §4 says so.
   - **The three ''analysis-plan-only'' papers are excluded from the 15.** All three pre-specified an analysis plan and registered nothing. Including them would make the count 18 and the page's central distinction — that a commitment nobody else can check is not a preregistration — incoherent. A reasonable person could include them with a footnote. They are not dropped: they have their own section on the content page, because a reader who already writes an analysis plan is the reader most likely to act on this page.   - **The three ''analysis-plan-only'' papers are excluded from the 15.** All three pre-specified an analysis plan and registered nothing. Including them would make the count 18 and the page's central distinction — that a commitment nobody else can check is not a preregistration — incoherent. A reasonable person could include them with a footnote. They are not dropped: they have their own section on the content page, because a reader who already writes an analysis plan is the reader most likely to act on this page.
Line 655: Line 655:
 | 3 | The footnote said ''aspredicted.org'' "returns HTTP 403 to some automated clients". A plain ''curl'' gets **406**. | **Accepted.** Measured: plain ''curl'' 406, browser User-Agent 200. Footnote and script comment corrected. | | 3 | The footnote said ''aspredicted.org'' "returns HTTP 403 to some automated clients". A plain ''curl'' gets **406**. | **Accepted.** Measured: plain ''curl'' 406, browser User-Agent 200. Footnote and script comment corrected. |
 | 4 | "11 papers, 8 distinct public registrations verified live" conflates the private one into the public count: 7 are public, 1 is private (HTTP 401), 2 are projects. | **Accepted.** The mechanics table now spells out 7 public + 1 private + 2 projects, and notes that the 11th paper writes "on OSF" with the URL only in a PDF hyperlink. | | 4 | "11 papers, 8 distinct public registrations verified live" conflates the private one into the public count: 7 are public, 1 is private (HTTP 401), 2 are projects. | **Accepted.** The mechanics table now spells out 7 public + 1 private + 2 projects, and notes that the 11th paper writes "on OSF" with the URL only in a PDF hyperlink. |
-| 5 | Every sibling ''statistics:'' link, plus ''design:user_studies'', ''design:automated_measurements'' and ''artifacts'', is a red link today. | **Accepted as a fact, rejected as a change.** All of them are already promised from [[start]], and this site links promised-but-missing pages as a matter of course — ''privacy:requests'' ships red links to ''programming:crawler:pagegraph'' and ''programming:crawler:tracker_radar_collector''. Removing them would make this page //less// consistent with the site, not more. It is recorded here so the next run does not "fix" it. |+| 5 | Every sibling ''statistics:'' link, plus ''design:user_studies'', ''design:automated_measurements'' and ''artifacts'', is a red link today. | **Accepted as a fact, rejected as a change.** All of them are already promised from [[:start]], and this site links promised-but-missing pages as a matter of course — ''privacy:requests'' ships red links to ''programming:crawler:pagegraph'' and ''programming:crawler:tracker_radar_collector''. Removing them would make this page //less// consistent with the site, not more. It is recorded here so the next run does not "fix" it. |
 | — | Could not verify: the two Klemmer et al. quotes (CISPA's figshare and the S3 mirror both refuse non-JS fetches) and IMC 2026's "mandatory" ethics appendix (the CfP defers to a separate instructions page). It said so rather than guessing, and it explicitly reported pulling the **wrong** Klemmer paper first and confirming that it was not the source. | **Noted, and both gaps were closed elsewhere**: the Klemmer quotes were verified verbatim against ''paper.cols.txt'' by pass 13.2 and by the author. The IMC "mandatory ethics appendix" was then confirmed verbatim on IMC 2026's own submission-instructions page — //"All papers must include, in a clearly marked appendix section with the heading 'Ethics', a statement about ethical issues; papers that do not include such a statement may be rejected"// — and the artifact-availability declaration on the CfP itself. | | — | Could not verify: the two Klemmer et al. quotes (CISPA's figshare and the S3 mirror both refuse non-JS fetches) and IMC 2026's "mandatory" ethics appendix (the CfP defers to a separate instructions page). It said so rather than guessing, and it explicitly reported pulling the **wrong** Klemmer paper first and confirming that it was not the source. | **Noted, and both gaps were closed elsewhere**: the Klemmer quotes were verified verbatim against ''paper.cols.txt'' by pass 13.2 and by the author. The IMC "mandatory ethics appendix" was then confirmed verbatim on IMC 2026's own submission-instructions page — //"All papers must include, in a clearly marked appendix section with the heading 'Ethics', a statement about ethical issues; papers that do not include such a statement may be rejected"// — and the artifact-availability declaration on the CfP itself. |
  
Line 690: Line 690:
 | Date | 2026-08-13 | | Date | 2026-08-13 |
 | Corpus at the time | 5,859 extracted papers and 5,869 full texts, 7 venues (CCS, IMC, NDSS, PETS, USENIX Security, TheWebConf, IEEE S&P), 2010–2026; ''data/extract/run1'' | | Corpus at the time | 5,859 extracted papers and 5,869 full texts, 7 venues (CCS, IMC, NDSS, PETS, USENIX Security, TheWebConf, IEEE S&P), 2010–2026; ''data/extract/run1'' |
-| Page before | did not exist — a red link from [[start]] |+| Page before | did not exist — a red link from [[:start]] |
 | Scripts written | ''prereg_fold.mjs'', ''report_preregistration.mjs'', ''external_checks_preregistration.sh'', ''pages/check_prereg_link.py'' | | Scripts written | ''prereg_fold.mjs'', ''report_preregistration.mjs'', ''external_checks_preregistration.sh'', ''pages/check_prereg_link.py'' |
 | Shared scripts fixed | ''fetch_authors.py'' (two author-dropping bugs), ''bibgen.mjs'' (PoPETs DOI prefix) — see §8 | | Shared scripts fixed | ''fetch_authors.py'' (two author-dropping bugs), ''bibgen.mjs'' (PoPETs DOI prefix) — see §8 |
Line 705: Line 705:
  
 Mechanical rendering repair only: a fresh live raw/XHTML export of 188 pages was checked with ''check_wrap.mjs'' and ''check_typography.mjs''. Affected plugin tags, CLI flags and heading markup were repaired; no figures or substantive prose were changed. The resulting source and rendered DOM were re-checked after saving. Mechanical rendering repair only: a fresh live raw/XHTML export of 188 pages was checked with ''check_wrap.mjs'' and ''check_typography.mjs''. Affected plugin tags, CLI flags and heading markup were repaired; no figures or substantive prose were changed. The resulting source and rendered DOM were re-checked after saving.
 +
 +===== Link-hygiene sweep, 2026-09-17 =====
 +
 +The fresh rendered-DOM sweep found five bare ''start'' links resolving to ''provenance:statistics:start''. They are now root-anchored; the post-save DOM was re-checked for red links. No figures or citations changed.
  
provenance/statistics/study_preregistration.1789629913.txt.gz · Last modified: by karel.kubicek.claude