MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2002858652 · doi:10.1002/cjs.5550360302

Bayesian analysis of elapsed times in continuous‐time Markov chains

2008· article· en· W2002858652 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Marco A. R. Ferreira, Marc A. Suchard

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Statistics · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistical Methods and Bayesian Inference
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersConselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico
KeywordsPrior probabilityFrequentist inferenceBayesian probabilityPosterior probabilityMarkov chainComputer scienceMathematicsBayesian inferenceEconometricsStatisticsMarkov chain Monte Carlo

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The authors consider Bayesian analysis for continuous‐time Markov chain models based on a conditional reference prior. For such models, inference of the elapsed time between chain observations depends heavily on the rate of decay of the prior as the elapsed time increases. Moreover, improper priors on the elapsed time may lead to improper posterior distributions. In addition, an infinitesimal rate matrix also characterizes this class of models. Experts often have good prior knowledge about the parameters of this matrix. The authors show that the use of a proper prior for the rate matrix parameters together with the conditional reference prior for the elapsed time yields a proper posterior distribution. The authors also demonstrate that, when compared to analyses based on priors previously proposed in the literature, a Bayesian analysis on the elapsed time based on the conditional reference prior possesses better frequentist properties. The type of prior thus represents a better default prior choice for estimation software.

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)0.019
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.101
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 score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.102

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0190.101
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.004
Scholarly communication0.0040.006
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.262 · 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

Citations344
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of StatisticsSame topicStatistical Methods and Bayesian InferenceFrench-language works237,207