37 lines
1.2 KiB
Markdown
37 lines
1.2 KiB
Markdown
# Statistical Appendix
|
|
|
|
## Primary Metric
|
|
- Word Error Rate (WER), lower is better.
|
|
|
|
## Sample Structure
|
|
- Unit of analysis: seed-level run, paired by shared data split and subject pool.
|
|
- Number of seeds per condition: 5.
|
|
|
|
## Descriptive Statistics
|
|
|
|
| Condition | Mean WER | Std | 95% CI |
|
|
|---|---:|---:|---:|
|
|
| Full fine-tuning | 31.4 | 1.9 | [29.8, 33.0] |
|
|
| Subject Adapter | 33.2 | 1.3 | [32.1, 34.3] |
|
|
| Frozen Encoder | 37.0 | 2.1 | [35.1, 38.9] |
|
|
|
|
## Assumption Checks
|
|
- Shapiro-Wilk on paired differences: `p = 0.19`
|
|
- No strong evidence against normality for the primary contrast.
|
|
- Given small n, interpretation remains conservative.
|
|
|
|
## Inferential Tests
|
|
|
|
| Contrast | Test | Statistic | p | Effect size | Correction |
|
|
|---|---|---|---:|---:|---|
|
|
| Subject Adapter vs Frozen Encoder | paired t-test | `t(4) = -4.11` | 0.014 | Cohen's `d = 1.84` | Holm |
|
|
| Full fine-tuning vs Subject Adapter | paired t-test | `t(4) = -2.03` | 0.112 | Cohen's `d = 0.91` | Holm |
|
|
|
|
## Interpretation Guardrails
|
|
- First contrast is supported after correction.
|
|
- Second contrast trends in favor of full fine-tuning but is not conclusive at this sample size.
|
|
|
|
## Blockers / Limits
|
|
- No subject-level bootstrap yet.
|
|
- No calibration analysis available.
|