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

Scientists need to compare the support for models based on observed phenomena. The main goal of the evidential paradigm is to quantify the strength of evidence in the data for a reference model relative to an alternative model. This is done via an evidence function, such as ΔSIC, an estimator of the sample size scaled difference of divergences between the generating mechanism and the competing models. To use evidence, either for decision making or as a guide to the accumulation of knowledge, an understanding of the uncertainty in the evidence is needed. This uncertainty is well characterized by the standard statistical theory of estimation. Unfortunately, the standard theory breaks down if the models are misspecified, as is commonly the case in scientific studies. We develop non-parametric bootstrap methodologies for estimating the sampling distribution of the evidence estimator under model misspecification. This sampling distribution allows us to determine how secure we are in our evidential statement. We characterize this uncertainty in the strength of evidence with two different types of confidence intervals, which we term “global” and “local.” We discuss how evidence uncertainty can be used to improve scientific inference and illustrate this with a reanalysis of the model identification problem in a prominent landscape ecology study using structural equations.

Assessing the Global and Local Uncertainty of Scientific Evidence in the Presence of Model Misspecification