Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 53 references

Beyond Satisfaction: Learning Associations Between Content, Reviews, and Well-Being

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-07-12 · grok-4.5

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read Star ratings and sentiment only loosely track well-being in book reviews, aligning more with short-term pleasure than lasting meaning or accomplishment.

desk verdict Clear large-N evidence that stars and sentiment track immediate/hedonic PERMA more than enduring/eudaimonic facets; content associations are real but under-controlled. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.02539 v1 pith:FH3A4JYP submitted 2026-06-22 cs.SI cs.CLcs.LG

Aaron Marker , Joel Lehman , H. Andrew Schwartz This is my paper
classification cs.SIcs.CLcs.LG
keywords well-beingPERMAbookreviewssentimentanalysiscontentrecommendationhedoniaeudaimoniadifferentiallanguage
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

Digital platforms treat ratings, likes, and sentiment as stand-ins for user well-being, yet psychological theory treats well-being as multidimensional—including meaning, relationships, and accomplishment, not only short-term positivity. This paper tests that practice in book consumption: it scores nearly a million Goodreads reviews for five PERMA well-being facets, separating immediate from enduring expressions, then links those scores to linguistic features of the books themselves. Ratings and sentiment correlate only loosely with most facets and track immediate, hedonic signals far more than enduring, eudaimonic ones. Book themes tied to values, religion, and human drives associate with higher meaning and accomplishment, while incivility and past-focused language associate with lower well-being. A sympathetic reader cares because systems that optimize only for satisfaction may systematically miss—or even undercut—deeper forms of well-being that people actually value.

What carries the argument

PERMA well-being facets (Positive Emotion, Engagement, Relationships, Meaning, Accomplishment) scored as both immediate and enduring expressions from review language: GPT-5 annotates 10,000 reviews, a ridge regression on sentence embeddings is trained on those labels and applied to the full corpus, then book-level averages are correlated with unigrams, LDA topics, and LIWC categories of the books’ full text.

What would settle it

If independent human annotators using the same PERMA definitions produce scores on a large held-out review set that do not correlate with the model’s predictions above chance for meaning and accomplishment, or if books high in religious or values language show no elevation in those facets once reviewer selection is controlled, the claim that ratings miss eudaimonic well-being linked to content themes would fail.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Rating scales and sentiment only loosely correlate with most facets of psychological well-being expressed in book reviews, and they align more closely with immediate and hedonic expressions than with enduring and eudaimonic ones. Linking those review-level scores to book content shows that themes related to values and institutions such as religion (r = 0.35) or human drives (r = 0.26) associate with higher meaning and accomplishment, while incivility (average r = −0.15) and past-focused language (average r = −0.12) associate with lower well-being.

Load-bearing premise

The claim rests on the premise that GPT-5 labels of immediate and enduring PERMA facets on a sample of reviews, plus a regression from text embeddings, validly recover true well-being expressions across the remaining nearly million reviews, and that book-level averages of those scores reflect the books’ content rather than who chooses to review them.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Recommendation systems that optimize only ratings or sentiment will preferentially surface content tied to short-term pleasure rather than meaning or accomplishment.
  • Platforms can treat review-derived well-being facets as richer training targets than star ratings alone.
  • Book themes emphasizing values, religion, present-focus, and human drives become candidates for promoting eudaimonic outcomes; past-focused and uncivil language become candidates for the opposite.
  • Separating immediate from enduring well-being expressions in user language gives platforms a practical way to distinguish hedonic from eudaimonic impact.
  • Once the review-to-content link is established, zero-shot or model-based estimation of well-being impact for new content becomes feasible.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same gap between satisfaction signals and multidimensional well-being likely appears on social media, news, and video platforms where passive consumption is common, so optimizing for likes may systematically underweight meaning.
  • Adding explicit meaning or accomplishment signals alongside ratings could reduce selection of content that spikes short-term affect while eroding longer-term purpose.
  • Individual-level rather than book-averaged models may reveal stronger associations than the population-level correlations reported here, enabling personalized well-being recommendation.
  • Annotation reliability for abstract facets such as Accomplishment remains a bottleneck; decomposing those facets further could raise the ceiling on what language models recover from reviews.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper argues that satisfaction signals (star ratings, sentiment) only loosely capture multidimensional psychological well-being and align more with immediate/hedonic than enduring/eudaimonic facets. Using PERMA, the authors obtain GPT-5 annotations of immediate and enduring Positive Emotion, Engagement, Relationships, Meaning, and Accomplishment on 10k Goodreads reviews, train ridge regression on mixedbread embeddings to score 949k reviews, and correlate book-level aggregates with HathiTrust unigrams, 2000 LDA topics, and LIWC features for 3425 books. They report moderate-to-low correlations of ratings/sentiment with most facets (stronger for immediate positive emotion/engagement) and content associations such as religion language with meaning (r=0.35), human drives with accomplishment (r=0.26), and negative links for past-focus and swearing/incivility.

Significance. If the reported distinctions and content associations survive stronger validation and controls, the work supplies concrete empirical motivation for recommendation systems to target richer well-being outcomes beyond satisfaction, and demonstrates a scalable differential-language pipeline linking fixed content to expressed psychological facets. Strengths include the large review corpus, explicit immediate/enduring distinction grounded in theory, multi-method content analysis (open- and closed-vocabulary), FDR/Bonferroni corrections, partial human gold-label evaluation with ICCs and AUCs, and transparent limitations discussion. These elements make the manuscript a useful bridge between NLP, computational social science, and positive psychology even if some associations prove confounded.

major comments (3)
  1. [§4.1–4.2, Table 1] §4.1–4.2 and Table 1: Ridge models recover human gold labels only moderately (Accomplishment enduring r=.246 / deattenuated .287; Relationships enduring r=.298; several other facets in the .3–.5 range). All book-level claims rest on these predicted scores; measurement error is therefore load-bearing. Stronger multi-annotator gold labels, confidence-weighted aggregation, or restriction of primary claims to higher-reliability facets (Positive Emotion, Meaning) are required before the abstract’s content associations can be treated as reliable.
  2. [§4.3, Tables 3–5] §4.3 and Tables 3–5: Book-level Pearson correlations (N=3425) between HathiTrust features and averaged PERMA scores omit controls for genre (Appendix A: Fiction ~38 %, History/biography ~17 %, etc.), review volume, mean rating, or era. Self-selection and genre confounds (spiritual/self-help titles attracting meaning-oriented reviewers; high-swear fiction) can fully explain the headline associations (religion–meaning r=0.35, drives–accomplishment r=.26, past-focus avg r=–.12, swearing avg r=–.15). Residualization, stratified analyses, or genre-matched matching is necessary for the content claims that motivate the paper’s recsys implications.
  3. [§4.4, Table 2] §4.4, Table 2 and Figure 4: The claim that ratings/sentiment track immediate/hedonic more than enduring/eudaimonic facets is central to RQ1, yet no sensitivity check is provided against annotation pipeline artifacts (GPT-5 may systematically under-detect abstract facets). Replicating the correlation matrix on the 300 human-labeled reviews alone, or on high-confidence GPT subsets, would confirm that the pattern is not an artifact of the teacher model.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§2] Related Work: typographical errors (“hednoia”, “V ossen”) and incomplete author names should be corrected.
  2. [Figure 3] Figure 3 and Appendix Figure 5: distributions of predicted facet scores are heavily zero-inflated; a brief note on how this affects Pearson correlations (or use of rank correlations) would improve interpretability.
  3. [Table 1] Table 1: report standard errors or bootstrap CIs for the teacher/gold correlations; the power calculation for N=300 is helpful but does not replace uncertainty quantification.
  4. [§4.3] §4.3: clarify the exact aggregation (simple mean of review scores? inverse-variance weighted?) and whether books with only five reviews receive equal weight to those with hundreds.
  5. [Abstract] Abstract and Conclusion: phrasing such as “associated with higher meaning and accomplishment respectively” is correlational; a single clarifying sentence that these are observational associations would align the abstract with the Limitations section.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: empirical associations between independent book features and review-derived PERMA scores; no reduction of claims to inputs by construction.

full rationale

The paper's load-bearing claims are Pearson correlations (Tables 2–5) between (i) star ratings/sentiment and model-predicted PERMA facet scores on reviews, and (ii) book-level linguistic features (unigrams, 2000-topic LDA trained on an external Facebook corpus, selected LIWC categories from HathiTrust word counts) and book-averaged PERMA scores. Well-being scores are obtained by GPT-5 annotation of 10k reviews followed by ridge regression from mixedbread embeddings; these are validated against held-out human gold labels (Table 1) and are not defined in terms of the book features. Book features are extracted independently of the review scores. No parameter is fitted to a subset of the reported outcomes and then re-presented as a prediction of a closely related quantity; no uniqueness theorem or ansatz is imported via self-citation to force the result; and the correlations are not identities forced by normalization or definition. Self-citations (e.g., Schwartz et al. on DLA/PERMA) supply methodological background only. The acknowledged prompt example of “religious faith” for Meaning is a validity note, not a definitional reduction of the book-level r values. The derivation chain is therefore self-contained empirical association, not circular.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central claims rest on the PERMA operationalization, the validity of LLM+ridge well-being scores as proxies for reader impact, and the assumption that aggregated review language reflects content associations rather than pure selection effects. No new physical entities are invented; free parameters are standard modeling choices (embedding model, ridge, LDA dimension, annotation sample size).

free parameters (4)
  • Ridge regression regularization strength
    Hyperparameter of the review-to-facet models trained on GPT labels; value not reported but affects all predicted scores used in later correlations.
  • LDA topic count (2000) and Facebook-trained topic model
    Dimensionality and training corpus of the open-vocabulary topic features correlated with well-being; chosen by authors, not derived.
  • GPT-5 annotation sample size (10,000) and human gold size (300)
    Determines teacher-label quality and validation power; chosen for cost/power trade-off.
  • Minimum review length and English filters
    Dataset construction thresholds (>50 chars, >45% English) that define the analysis population.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption PERMA (Positive Emotion, Engagement, Relationships, Meaning, Accomplishment) is an adequate multi-facet operationalization of well-being for differential language analysis of book reviews.
    Adopted in §2–4 from Seligman (2011) and prior NLP use; not re-validated as the unique correct decomposition.
  • ad hoc to paper Immediate vs enduring facet scores can be reliably distinguished from review text alone.
    Introduced in §4.1 with prompt definitions; human ICCs are moderate and some facets are rare.
  • domain assumption Book-level averages of review well-being scores are informative about associations with book content features.
    Aggregation step in §4.3; assumes reviews primarily reflect content impact rather than self-selection of reviewers.
  • standard math Standard statistical tools (Pearson r, Benjamini-Hochberg FDR, Bonferroni) correctly control error rates for the reported associations.
    Used throughout results tables.
invented entities (1)
  • Immediate vs enduring PERMA facet scores as separate continuous targets
    purpose: To separate short-term reading experience from claimed long-term life change in the same review text.
    Operationalized via the GPT prompt; not a prior standard instrument with external validation in this domain.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Beyond Satisfaction: Learning Associations Between Content, Reviews, and Well-Being." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/FH3A4JYP

@misc{pith2026260702539,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Beyond Satisfaction: Learning Associations Between Content, Reviews, and Well-Being},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/FH3A4JYP}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.02539}
}
read the original abstract

Digital platforms commonly optimize for satisfaction using signals such as ratings, likes, and sentiment, implicitly treating satisfaction as a proxy for user well-being. Psychological theory, however, characterizes well-being as a multidimensional construct that extends beyond satisfaction or short-term positivity. In this paper, we examine whether commonly used satisfaction signals capture expressions of well-being, and what types of content are associated with different well-being outcomes. Our study focuses on book consumption, a convenient domain wherein users engage substantially with fixed pieces of content and sometimes provide nuanced long-form feedback. Our results show that (a) rating scales and sentiment only loosely correlate with most facets of psychological well-being and (b) ratings and sentiment are more closely aligned with immediate and hedonic as opposed to enduring and eudaimonic expressions of well-being. Further, by linking reviews to book content, we find that themes related to values, and institutions like religion (Pearson r = 0.35) or human drives (r=.26) are associated with higher meaning and accomplishment respectively, while incivility (avg r = -.15) and past-focused language (avg r = -.12) are associated with lower well-being. These findings motivate richer outcome targets for content recommendation systems beyond satisfaction alone.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.02539 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Well-being is modeled as a latent construct [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. We correlate stars, sentiment, and PERMA [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Distributions of Facet Scores: Colored lines [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Correlations of Immediate Facet Scores with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Distributions of Facet Scores: Colored lines [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Correlations of Facet Scores: correlation be [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_6.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

53 extracted references · 4 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Aho and Jeffrey D

    Alfred V. Aho and Jeffrey D. Ullman , title =. 1972

    1972

  2. [2]

    Publications Manual , year = "1983", publisher =

    1983

  3. [3]

    Chandra and Dexter C

    Ashok K. Chandra and Dexter C. Kozen and Larry J. Stockmeyer , year = "1981", title =. doi:10.1145/322234.322243

    doi:10.1145/322234.322243 1981

  4. [4]

    Scalable training of

    Andrew, Galen and Gao, Jianfeng , booktitle=. Scalable training of

  5. [5]

    Dan Gusfield , title =. 1997

    1997

  6. [6]

    Tetreault , title =

    Mohammad Sadegh Rasooli and Joel R. Tetreault , title =. Computing Research Repository , volume =. 2015 , url =

    2015

  7. [7]

    A Framework for Learning Predictive Structures from Multiple Tasks and Unlabeled Data , Volume =

    Ando, Rie Kubota and Zhang, Tong , Issn =. A Framework for Learning Predictive Structures from Multiple Tasks and Unlabeled Data , Volume =. Journal of Machine Learning Research , Month = dec, Numpages =

  8. [8]

    2023 , doi =

    More than a Feeling: Accuracy and Application of Sentiment Analysis , journal =. 2023 , doi =

    2023

Show all 53 references
  1. [9]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:1907.11692 , year=

    Roberta: A robustly optimized bert pretraining approach , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:1907.11692 , year=

    1907 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Ganesan, Adithya and Wheeler, Abigail and Kerry, Nicholas and Clifton, Jeremy D

    Mangalik, Siddharth and V. Ganesan, Adithya and Wheeler, Abigail and Kerry, Nicholas and Clifton, Jeremy D. W. and Schwartz, H. Andrew and Boyd, Ryan L. Capturing Author Self Beliefs in Social Media Language. Proceedings of the 63rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Comput...

    2025 doi

  3. [11]

    2024 , url=

    Open Source Strikes Bread - New Fluffy Embeddings Model , author=. 2024 , url=

    2024

  4. [12]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.12871 , year=

    AnglE-optimized Text Embeddings , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.12871 , year=

    arXiv

  5. [13]

    Journal of Happiness Studies , volume=

    Momentary PERMA: An adapted measurement tool for studying well-being in daily life , author=. Journal of Happiness Studies , volume=. 2023 , publisher=

    2023

  6. [14]

    Applied Developmental Science , volume=

    Assessing psychological well-being in early adulthood: Empirical evidence for the structure of daily well-being via network analysis , author=. Applied Developmental Science , volume=. 2022 , publisher=

    2022

  7. [15]

    International journal of adolescence and youth , volume=

    A systematic review: the influence of social media on depression, anxiety and psychological distress in adolescents , author=. International journal of adolescence and youth , volume=. 2020 , publisher=

    2020

  8. [16]

    International Review of Psychiatry , volume=

    Social media use and depression in adolescents: a scoping review , author=. International Review of Psychiatry , volume=. 2020 , publisher=

    2020

  9. [17]

    Behavioral Sciences , volume=

    Effects of social media use on youth and adolescent mental health: A scoping review of reviews , author=. Behavioral Sciences , volume=. 2025 , publisher=

    2025

  10. [18]

    JMIR mental health , volume=

    Problematic social media use in adolescents and young adults: systematic review and meta-analysis , author=. JMIR mental health , volume=. 2022 , publisher=

    2022

  11. [19]

    JAMA Network Open , volume=

    Social media use and depressive symptoms during early adolescence , author=. JAMA Network Open , volume=. 2025 , publisher=

    2025

  12. [20]

    Does social media use make us happy? A meta-analysis on social media and positive well-being outcomes , journal =

    Laura Marciano and Jeffrey Lin and Taisuke Sato and Sundas Saboor and Kasisomayajula Viswanath , abstract =. Does social media use make us happy? A meta-analysis on social media and positive well-being outcomes , journal =. 2024 , issn =. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssmmh.20...

    2024 doi

  13. [21]

    Current Directions in Psychological Science , volume=

    Do social networking sites influence well-being? The extended active-passive model , author=. Current Directions in Psychological Science , volume=. 2022 , publisher=

    2022

  14. [22]

    Social Issues and Policy Review , volume=

    Do social network sites enhance or undermine subjective well-being? A critical review , author=. Social Issues and Policy Review , volume=. 2017 , publisher=

    2017

  15. [23]

    Advances in experimental social psychology , volume=

    Toward a self-evaluation maintenance model of social behavior , author=. Advances in experimental social psychology , volume=. 1988 , publisher=

    1988

  16. [24]

    Exercise to be fit, not skinny

    “Exercise to be fit, not skinny”: The effect of fitspiration imagery on women's body image , author=. Body image , volume=. 2015 , publisher=

    2015

  17. [25]

    Cyberpsychology, behavior, and social networking , volume=

    Selective self-presentation and social comparison through photographs on social networking sites , author=. Cyberpsychology, behavior, and social networking , volume=. 2016 , publisher=

    2016

  18. [26]

    Proceedings of the 2008 ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative work , pages=

    I'm sad you're sad: emotional contagion in CMC , author=. Proceedings of the 2008 ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative work , pages=

    2008

  19. [27]

    Current opinion in psychology , volume=

    Social comparison on social networking sites , author=. Current opinion in psychology , volume=. 2020 , publisher=

    2020

  20. [28]

    2025 , month =

    Digital News Report 2025: Executive Summary , author =. 2025 , month =

    2025

  21. [29]

    British Journal of Psychology , volume=

    Is the news making us unhappy? The influence of daily news exposure on emotional states , author=. British Journal of Psychology , volume=. 2020 , publisher=

    2020

  22. [30]

    Child Indicators Research , volume =

    Benefits of Positive Psychology-Based Story Reading on Adolescent Mental Health and Well-Being , author =. Child Indicators Research , volume =. 2022 , publisher =. doi:10.1007/s12187-021-09891-4 , url =

    2022 doi

  23. [31]

    PLOS One , volume =

    Does Reading Fiction Improve Mental Health and Well-Being? , author =. PLOS One , volume =. 2022 , publisher =. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0266323 , url =

    2022 doi

  24. [32]

    Nature human behaviour , volume=

    Advances in subjective well-being research , author=. Nature human behaviour , volume=. 2018 , publisher=

    2018

  25. [33]

    Annual review of psychology , volume=

    On happiness and human potentials: A review of research on hedonic and eudaimonic well-being , author=. Annual review of psychology , volume=. 2001 , publisher=

    2001

  26. [34]

    , author=

    Two conceptions of happiness: Contrasts of personal expressiveness (eudaimonia) and hedonic enjoyment. , author=. Journal of personality and social psychology , volume=. 1993 , publisher=

    1993

  27. [35]

    Current directions in psychological science , volume=

    How do simple positive activities increase well-being? , author=. Current directions in psychological science , volume=. 2013 , publisher=

    2013

  28. [36]

    Hedonic adaptation to positive and negative experiences , author=

  29. [37]

    Positive psychology in search for meaning , pages=

    Some key differences between a happy life and a meaningful life , author=. Positive psychology in search for meaning , pages=. 2016 , publisher=

    2016

  30. [38]

    2011 , publisher=

    Flourish: A visionary new understanding of happiness and well-being , author=. 2011 , publisher=

    2011

  31. [39]

    Biocomputing 2016: Proceedings of the pacific symposium , pages=

    Predicting individual well-being through the language of social media , author=. Biocomputing 2016: Proceedings of the pacific symposium , pages=. 2016 , organization=

    2016

  32. [40]

    Austin, TX: University of Texas at Austin , volume=

    The development and psychometric properties of LIWC-22 , author=. Austin, TX: University of Texas at Austin , volume=

  33. [41]

    PloS one , volume=

    Personality, gender, and age in the language of social media: The open-vocabulary approach , author=. PloS one , volume=. 2013 , publisher=

    2013

  34. [42]

    PloS one , volume=

    Temporal patterns of happiness and information in a global social network: Hedonometrics and Twitter , author=. PloS one , volume=. 2011 , publisher=

    2011

  35. [43]

    Assessment , volume=

    The online social self: An open vocabulary approach to personality , author=. Assessment , volume=. 2014 , publisher=

    2014

  36. [44]

    Story Morals: Surfacing value-driven narrative schemas using large language models

    Hobson, David G and Zhou, Haiqi and Ruths, Derek and Piper, Andrew. Story Morals: Surfacing value-driven narrative schemas using large language models. Proceedings of the 2024 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing. 2024. doi:10.18653/v1/2024.emnlp-main.723

    2024 doi

  37. [45]

    CLAUSE - ATLAS : A Corpus of Narrative Information to Scale up Computational Literary Analysis

    Troiano, Enrica and Vossen, Piek T.J.M. CLAUSE - ATLAS : A Corpus of Narrative Information to Scale up Computational Literary Analysis. Proceedings of the 2024 Joint International Conference on Computational Linguistics, Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC-COLING 2024). 2024

    2024

  38. [46]

    Science and Information Conference , pages=

    Dynamic topic modeling reveals variations in online hate narratives , author=. Science and Information Conference , pages=. 2022 , organization=

    2022

  39. [47]

    International conference on machine learning , pages=

    Topic modeling using topics from many domains, lifelong learning and big data , author=. International conference on machine learning , pages=. 2014 , organization=

    2014

  40. [48]

    , author=

    Pingouin: statistics in Python. , author=. J. Open Source Softw. , volume=

  41. [49]

    International journal of wellbeing , volume=

    The PERMA-Profiler: A brief multidimensional measure of flourishing , author=. International journal of wellbeing , volume=

  42. [50]

    Proceedings of the national academy of sciences , volume=

    Estimating geographic subjective well-being from Twitter: A comparison of dictionary and data-driven language methods , author=. Proceedings of the national academy of sciences , volume=. 2020 , publisher=

    2020

  43. [51]

    Journal of chiropractic medicine , volume=

    A guideline of selecting and reporting intraclass correlation coefficients for reliability research , author=. Journal of chiropractic medicine , volume=. 2016 , publisher=

    2016

  44. [52]

    Journal of the American Statistical Association , volume=

    Multiple comparisons among means , author=. Journal of the American Statistical Association , volume=. 1961 , publisher=

    1961

  45. [53]

    Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B , volume=

    Controlling the false discovery rate: A practical and powerful approach to multiple testing , author=. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B , volume=

Pith tools

Reviewed July 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.