MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1905891062 · doi:10.1002/pst.1704

Bayesian inference in two‐arm trials using relative belief ratios

2015· article· en· W1905891062 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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenuePharmaceutical Statistics · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistical Methods in Clinical Trials
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoUniversity of Manitoba
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsBayesian probabilityInferenceStatistical inferenceBayesian inferenceComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceBayesian statisticsFiducial inferenceMeasure (data warehouse)Machine learningFrequentist inferenceEconometricsStatisticsMathematicsData mining

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Various methodologies proposed for some inference problems associated with two-arm trails are known to suffer from difficulties, as documented in Senn (2001). We propose an alternative Bayesian approach to these problems that deals with these difficulties through providing an explicit measure of statistical evidence and the strength of this evidence. Bayesian methods are often criticized for their intrinsic subjectivity. We show how these concerns can be dealt with through assessing the bias induced by a prior model checking and checking for prior-data conflict.

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)0.015
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.522
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.507
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.522
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.880
GPT teacher head0.701
Teacher spread0.179 · 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