MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2021803007 · doi:10.1214/13-ba824

Hypothesis Assessment and Inequalities for Bayes Factors and Relative Belief Ratios

2013· article· en· W2021803007 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

VenueBayesian Analysis · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistical Methods and Bayesian Inference
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBayes factorBayes' ruleBayes' theoremBayes error rateBayesian probabilityBayesian programmingA priori and a posterioriMathematicsBayesian inferenceEconometricsStatisticsPoint estimationComputer scienceBayes classifier

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We discuss the definition of a Bayes factor and develop some inequalities relevant to Bayesian inferences. An approach to hypothesis assessment based on the computation of a Bayes factor, a measure of the strength of the evidence given by the Bayes factor via a posterior probability, and the point where the Bayes factor is maximized is recommended. It is also recommended that the a priori properties of a Bayes factor be considered to assess possible bias inherent in the Bayes factor. This methodology can be seen to deal with many of the issues and controversies associated with hypothesis assessment. We present an application to a two-way analysis.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.399
Threshold uncertainty score0.713

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.077
GPT teacher head0.369
Teacher spread0.292 · 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