experimental-design

Direction tested: experimental-design INSTANCE_OF research-design. Specific→general. Is experimental-design a specific kind of research-design? Yes — experimental design (manipulating variables, controlling conditions) IS a form of research design methodology. A competent speaker would call it 'a research design.' The note pins the sense of research-design as the structured approach to designing research protocols, per its accepted definition.

Experimental-design needs hypothesis to operate: remove the hypothesis and you no longer have an experimental design — just data collection. The removal test passes cleanly. This is a present-tense dependency, not historical.

Direction tested: double-blind IS a specific kind of experimental design method — a protocol where neither participants nor investigators know group assignments. Per Law 9, a competent speaker calls it a kind of experimental design. Specific→general.

Direction tested: blind-test IS a specific kind of experimental-design method. Per Law 9, a competent speaker calls a blind test a kind of experimental design. blind-test is newer and more specific than experimental-design (epoch 0.01 vs 0.38), fitting the specific→general direction.

Direction tested: randomization IS a specific kind of experimental-design method. Per Law 9, a competent speaker calls randomization a type of experimental design practice. Randomization is the specific technique; experimental-design is the general field of methodology.

Remove experimental-design — does placebo stop operating? Yes. A placebo's entire function is as an inert control within an experimental framework; strip away experimental design and the placebo collapses into just an inert substance with no operational role.

remove experimental-design — does blinding stop operating? Yes. Blinding conceals treatment assignment to prevent bias; without experimental design providing treatment groups, blinding has no role to play.

Removal test: remove experimental design and allocation concealment has no operational context — it conceals treatment assignments in randomized studies. Without experimental design, the mechanism has nothing to conceal. Present-tense dependency confirmed.

Which-came-first: experimental design (the practice of controlled experiments) predates the formal concept of confounding. The concept emerged when researchers noticed that uncontrolled variables could produce spurious correlations in experiments. Experimental design came first and fed into the confounding concept.

The concept of holding a variable constant to isolate effects exists within and derives from the practice of experimental design. Removal test: remove experimental design — the practice of systematically identifying, holding constant, and manipulating factors ceases to operate; control-variable as a concept has no standalone working. The sense is experimental methodology, not general constancy.

ablation-study is a specific kind of experimental design — removing components to determine their contribution. A competent speaker calls it 'an experimental design' or 'experimental method'.

blind-study is a specific kind of experimental-design. The note pins INSTANCE_OF: a blind-study IS an experimental-design methodology that masks treatment assignment or hypotheses. A competent speaker calls it an experimental design. Per Law 9.

A control group IS a specific kind of experimental design element — it is the baseline comparison group in an experiment that does not receive the treatment. A competent speaker in research methodology would call it a type of experimental design. Direction: specific→general per Law 9.

Factorial design IS a specific kind of experimental design: it structures experiments by manipulating multiple factors simultaneously across defined levels. A competent speaker would call it 'a type of experimental design.' Nearest kind is experimental-design — no intermediate rung exists.

Power analysis is designed and maintained for the sake of experimental design: its primary purpose is to determine sample sizes and detect effects within experimental frameworks. The test is 'for whose sake?' — power analysis exists to serve experimental design.

An ablation study removes components to test necessity within an experimental framework. Remove experimental design and the ablation study concept has nothing to operate on — it requires the structure of experimental design to function. Present-tense removal test passes (Law 8b).