Barely Significant

Excerpts

27,100 sentences · 1 filter applied

marginally significantp = 0.040.8× alphagold
The main effect of space typology was marginally significant (Wilks’ Λ = 0.80, F(2,29) = 3.62, p = 0.04), with Nodal spaces (6939.34 ms) showing significantly longer fixation durations than Path spaces (6601.19 ms, Δ = 338.15 ms, p = 0.01), which contrasts with the non-significant difference in PRS scores between Nodal and Path spaces, suggesting that although Nodal spaces have longer fixation durations, their attention restoration efficiency is lower (PRS score = 68.03).
marginally significantp = 0.0400.8× alphagold
Pre-registered analyses isolated to false and true headlines revealed that the nudge was associated with a marginally significant reduction in false-headline sharing in both the 12.5% and 20% misinformation conditions; OR = 1.76, SE = 0.49, z = 2.05, p = 0.040 and OR = 1.70, SE = 0.40, z = 2.22, p = 0.026 respectively.
marginally significant tendencyp = 0.0400.8× alphagold
Additionally, observers were more likely to eat the novel food when more trials had been run at each table (Est = 0.23 ± 0.11, z = 2.07, p = 0.038), and observers that landed on the risky side of the table showed a marginally significant tendency to avoid eating novel food (Est = −1.21 ± 0.59, z = −2.06, p = 0.040).
slight significancep = 0.040.8× alphaqualifiedgold
For both stability indices, the permuted ANOVAs revealed significances for polymer types ( p = 0.001, Table S2), whereas only τ max showed slight significance for the soil extracts including dH 2 O ( p = 0.04). τ YP showed high effect sizes of the polymer type and the soil extract with ɳp 2 = 0.51 (Table S2) and ɳp 2 = 0.20 while the interaction of both showed medium effect size of ɳp 2 = 0.12.
marginally significantp = 0.04130.8× alphagold
Similarly, neither pCREB1a nor pCREB1c levels varied significantly between time periods in both the non-hibernation and hibernation seasons [one-way ANOVA, p = 0.831 (pCREB1a, non-hibernation), p = 0.0413 (pCREB1a, hibernation), p = 0.282 (pCREB1c, non-hibernation), p = 0.213 (pCREB1c, hibernation)], of which, although the one-way ANOVA analysis showed a marginally significant difference for pCREB1a in the hibernation season ( p = 0.0413), the subsequent Tukey’s test showed no significant difference in pairwise comparisons (Fig. 4 e, f).