MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1973411063 · doi:10.1002/cjs.5550350207

Objective priors for hypothesis testing in one‐way random effects models

2007· article· en· W1973411063 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Gonzalo García‐Donato, Dongchu Sun

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Statistics · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicAdvanced Statistical Methods and Models
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPrior probabilityBayes factorBayes' theoremDivergence (linguistics)OrthogonalityContext (archaeology)EconometricsMathematicsStatistical hypothesis testingComputer scienceStatisticsArtificial intelligenceMachine learningBayesian probability

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The Bayes factor is a key tool in hypothesis testing. Nevertheless, the important issue of which priors should be used to develop objective Bayes factors remains open. The authors consider this problem in the context of the one‐way random effects model. They use concepts such as orthogonality, predictive matching and invariance to justify a specific form of the priors for common parameters and derive the intrinsic and divergence based prior for the new parameter. The authors show that both intrinsic priors or divergence‐based priors produce consistent Bayes factors. They illustrate the methods and compare them with other proposals.

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.084
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.262
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
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 score0.084
Threshold uncertainty score0.446

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0840.262
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.006
Scholarly communication0.0040.007
Open science0.0040.004
Research integrity0.0030.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.153
GPT teacher head0.358
Teacher spread0.204 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations27
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of StatisticsSame topicAdvanced Statistical Methods and ModelsFrench-language works237,207