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 Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Following an extensive simulation study comparing the operatingcharacteristics of three different procedures used for establishing equivalence(the frequentist "TOST", the Bayesian "HDI-ROPE", and the Bayes factor intervalnull procedure), Linde et al. (2021) conclude with the recommendation that"researchers rely more on the Bayes factor interval null approach forquantifying evidence for equivalence." We redo the simulation study of Linde etal. (2021) in its entirety but with the different procedures calibrated to havethe same predetermined maximum type 1 error rate. Our results suggest that,when calibrated in this way, the Bayes Factor, HDI-ROPE, and frequentistequivalence tests all have similar -- almost exactly -- type 2 error rates. Ingeneral any advocating for frequentist testing as better or worse than Bayesiantesting in terms of empirical findings seems dubious at best. If one decides onwhich underlying principle to subscribe to in tackling a given problem, thenthe method follows naturally. Bearing in mind that each procedure can bereverse-engineered from the others (at least approximately), trying to useempirical performance to argue for one approach over another seems like tiltingat windmills.

re:Linde et al. (2021): The Bayes factor, HDI-ROPE and frequentist  equivalence tests can all be reverse engineered -- almost exactly -- from one  another