MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

A Bayesian<i>A</i>‐Optimal and Model Robust Design Criterion

2003· article· en· W2009242172 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

VenueBiometrics · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicOptimal Experimental Design Methods
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityMontreal General Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBayesian probabilityTRACE (psycholinguistics)Optimal designSet (abstract data type)Mathematical optimizationMathematicsLimit (mathematics)Function (biology)Optimality criterionBasis (linear algebra)Bayesian experimental designBayesian inferenceComputer scienceApplied mathematicsStatisticsBayesian statistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Suppose that the true model underlying a set of data is one of a finite set of candidate models, and that parameter estimation for this model is of primary interest. With this goal, optimal design must depend on a loss function across all possible models. A common method that accounts for model uncertainty is to average the loss over all models; this is the basis of what is known as Läuter's criterion. We generalize Läuter's criterion and show that it can be placed in a Bayesian decision theoretic framework, by extending the definition of Bayesian A-optimality. We use this generalized A-optimality to find optimal design points in an environmental safety setting. In estimating the smallest detectable trace limit in a water contamination problem, we obtain optimal designs that are quite different from those suggested by standard A-optimality.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.792
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.007
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.317
GPT teacher head0.433
Teacher spread0.116 · 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