Bibliographic record
Abstract
Consider an experiment yielding an observable random quantity X whose distribution F θ depends on a parameter θ with θ being distributed according to some distribution G 0 . We study the Bayesian estimation problem of θ under squared error loss function based on X , as well as some additional data available from other similar experiments according to an empirical Bayes structure. In a recent paper, Samaniego and Neath (1996) investigated the questions of whether, and when, this information can be exploited so as to provide a better estimate of θ in the current experiment. They constructed a Bayes empirical Bayes estimator that is superior to the original Bayes estimator, based only on the current observation X for sampling situations involving exponential families‐conjugate prior pair. In this paper, we present an improved Bayes empirical Bayes estimator having a smaller Bayes risk than that of Samaniego and Neath′s estimator. We further observe that our estimator is superior to the original Bayes estimator in more general situations than those of the exponential families‐conjugate prior combination.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".