MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2052582511 · doi:10.4061/2011/404605

Some Applications of Bayes' Rule in Probability Theory to Electrocatalytic Reaction Engineering

2011· article· en· W2052582511 on OpenAlexafffund
Thomas Z. Fahidy

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Electrochemistry · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicBayesian Modeling and Causal Inference
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaUniversity of Waterloo
KeywordsPrior probabilityBayes' theoremPosterior probabilityBayesian probabilityConditional probabilityProbability distributionEmpirical probabilityBayes factorRange (aeronautics)ElectrocatalystBayesian hierarchical modelingChain rule (probability)Law of total probabilityComputer scienceMathematicsStatisticsChemistryMaterials scienceElectrode

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Bayesian methods stem from the principle of linking prior probability and conditional probability (likelihood) to posterior probability via Bayes′ rule. The posterior probability is an updated (improved) version of the prior probability of an event, through the likelihood of finding empirical evidence if the underlying assumptions (hypothesis) are valid. In the absence of a frequency distribution for the prior probability, Bayesian methods have been found more satisfactory than distribution‐based techniques. The paper illustrates the utility of Bayes′ rule in the analysis of electrocatalytic reactor performance by means of four numerical examples involving a catalytic oxygen cathode, hydrogen evolution on a synthetic metal, the reliability of a device testing the quality of an electrocatalyst, and the range of Tafel slopes exhibited by an electrocatalyst.

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)0.020
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.042
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 score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.107

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0200.042
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.007
Scholarly communication0.0030.005
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0030.006
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.228 · 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
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of ElectrochemistrySame topicBayesian Modeling and Causal InferenceFrench-language works237,207