MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1903799253 · doi:10.1002/widm.1094

Bayesian treed response surface models

2013· article· en· W1903799253 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueWiley Interdisciplinary Reviews Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistical Methods and Bayesian Inference
Canadian institutionsAcadia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceMachine learningBayesian probabilityArtificial intelligenceModel selectionBayesian linear regressionTree (set theory)InferenceGaussian processBayesian inferenceData miningMathematicsGaussian

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Tree‐based regression and classification, popularized in the 1980s with the advent of the classification and regression trees (CART) has seen a recent resurgence in popularity alongside a boom in modern computing power. The new methodologies take advantage of simulation‐based inference, and ensemble methods, to produce higher fidelity response surfaces with competitive out‐of‐sample predictive performance while retaining many of the attractive features of classic trees: thrifty divide‐and‐conquer nonparametric inference, variable selection and sensitivity analysis, and nonstationary modeling features. In this paper, we review recent advances in Bayesian modeling for trees, from simple Bayesian CART models, treed Gaussian process, sequential inference via dynamic trees, to ensemble modeling via Bayesian additive regression trees (BART). We outline open source R packages supporting these methods and illustrate their use. This article is categorized under: Algorithmic Development > Statistics Algorithmic Development > Structure Discovery Application Areas > Data Mining Software Tools

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.830
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.162
GPT teacher head0.416
Teacher spread0.255 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it