MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1994156022 · doi:10.1111/1467-9884.00347

Determination of exact sample sizes in the Bayesian estimation of the difference of two proportions

2003· article· en· W1994156022 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 the Royal Statistical Society Series D (The Statistician) · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicAdvanced Statistical Methods and Models
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Moncton
FundersEuropean Regional Development FundIndiana University BloomingtonUniversité de Moncton
KeywordsStatisticsMathematicsContext (archaeology)Sample size determinationBayesian probabilityBayes' theoremSample (material)Bayes estimatorHypergeometric distributionCredible interval

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Summary. Using generalized hypergeometric functions in several variables in a Bayesian context, we compute the exact minimum double-sample size (n1, n2) required in the Bernoulli sampling of two independent populations, so that the expected length (or the maximum length) of the highest posterior density credible interval of P=P1 − P2 is less than a preset quantity, where P1 and P2 are two independent proportions. This precise and computer-intensive approach permits the treatment of this Bayesian sample size determination problem under very general hypotheses and also provides a relationship between the minimal values of n1 and n2. Similar results are derived in an applied Bayesian decision theory context, with a quadratic loss function, and the criteria used are now the posterior risk, the Bayes risk and the expected value of sample information.

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)0.019
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
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 score0.469
Threshold uncertainty score0.989

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.019
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.371
Teacher spread0.327 · 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