MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

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

2003· article· en· W2009242172 on OpenAlexaff
Xiaojie Zhou, Lawrence Joseph, David B. Wolfson, Patrick Bélisle

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.

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)0.018
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.037
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 score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.097

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0180.037
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0040.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.317
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

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

Citations13
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBiometricsSame topicOptimal Experimental Design MethodsFrench-language works237,207