MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2002026546 · doi:10.1177/0962280212453891

Meta-analysis using Dirichlet process

2012· article· en· W2002026546 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

VenueStatistical Methods in Medical Research · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicBayesian Methods and Mixture Models
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDirichlet processLatent Dirichlet allocationHierarchical Dirichlet processDirichlet distributionGeneralized Dirichlet distributionComputer scienceBayesian probabilityProcess (computing)Marginal likelihoodStatisticsEconometricsData miningMathematicsTopic modelDirichlet's energyInformation retrieval

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article develops a Bayesian approach for meta-analysis using the Dirichlet process. The key aspect of the Dirichlet process in meta-analysis is the ability to assess evidence of statistical heterogeneity or variation in the underlying effects across study while relaxing the distributional assumptions. We assume that the study effects are generated from a Dirichlet process. Under a Dirichlet process model, the study effects parameters have support on a discrete space and enable borrowing of information across studies while facilitating clustering among studies. We illustrate the proposed method by applying it to a dataset on the Program for International Student Assessment on 30 countries. Results from the data analysis, simulation studies, and the log pseudo-marginal likelihood model selection procedure indicate that the Dirichlet process model performs better than conventional alternative methods.

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)0.059
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.019
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
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 score0.389
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0590.019
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.005
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.495
GPT teacher head0.631
Teacher spread0.136 · 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