English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

One remedy to the misuse of  p -values transforms them to bounds on Bayes factors. With a prior probability of the null hypothesis, such a bound gives a lower bound on the posterior probability. Unfortunately, knowing a posterior probability is above some number cannot ensure that the null hypothesis is improbable enough to warrant its rejection. For example, if the lower bound is 0.0001, that implies that the posterior probability is at least 0.0001 but does not imply it is lower than 0.05 or even 0.9. A fiducial argument suggests an alternative estimate of the posterior probability that the null hypothesis is true. In the case that the prior probability of the null hypothesis is 50%, the estimated posterior probability is aboutfor low  p . In other cases, each occurrence ofin the formula is the  p -value calibrated by multiplying it by the prior odds of the null hypothesis. In the absence of a prior,also serves as an asymptotic Bayes factor. Since the fiducial estimate of the posterior probability is greater than the lower bounds, its use in place of a bound leads to more stringent hypothesis testing. Making that replacement in a rationale for 0.005 as the significance level reduces the level to 0.001.

Fiducialize statistical significance: transforming p -values into conservative posterior probabilities and Bayes factors