MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1968593589 · doi:10.1080/10485252.2013.856431

Goodness-of-fit tests based on the distance between the Dirichlet process and its base measure

2014· article· en· W1968593589 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

VenueJournal of nonparametric statistics · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicBayesian Methods and Mixture Models
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsDirichlet processMathematicsConcentration parameterHierarchical Dirichlet processLatent Dirichlet allocationGoodness of fitMeasure (data warehouse)Nonparametric statisticsDirichlet distributionInferenceBase (topology)Applied mathematicsStatisticsBayesian probabilityMathematical analysisComputer scienceTopic modelData miningArtificial intelligenceBoundary value problem

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Dirichlet process is a fundamental tool in studying Bayesian nonparametric inference. The Dirichlet process has several sum representations, where each one of these representations highlights some aspects of this important process. In this paper, we use the sum representations of the Dirichlet process to derive explicit expressions that are used to calculate Kolmogorov, Lévy, and Cramér–von Mises distances between the Dirichlet process and its base measure. The derived expressions of the distance are used to select a proper value for the concentration parameter of the Dirichlet process. These tools are also used in a goodness-of-fit test. Illustrative examples and simulation results are included.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.749
Threshold uncertainty score0.654

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.315
Teacher spread0.268 · 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