Bibliographic record
Abstract
Data collected in agricultural experiments can be analyzed in many different ways using different models. The most commonly used models are the linear model and the generalized linear model. The maximum likelihood method is often used for data analysis. However, this method may not be able to handle complicated models, especially multiple level hierarchical models. The Bayesian method partitions complicated models into simple components, each of which may be formulated analytically. Therefore, the Bayesian method is capable of handling very complicated models. The Bayesian method itself may not be more complicated than the maximum likelihood method, but the analysis is time consuming, because numerical integration involved in Bayesian analysis is almost exclusively accomplished based on Monte Carlo simulations, the so called Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) algorithm. Although the MCMC algorithm is intuitive and straightforward to statisticians, it may not be that simple to agricultural scientists, whose main purpose is to implement the method and interpret the results. In this review, we provide the general concept of Bayesian analysis and the MCMC algorithm in a way that can be understood by non-statisticians. We also demonstrate the implementation of the MCMC algorithm using professional software packages such as the MCMC procedure in SAS software. Three datasets from agricultural experiments were analyzed to demonstrate the MCMC algorithm.Key words: Bayesian method, Generalized linear model, Markov Chain Monte Carlo, SAS, WinBUGS
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.076 | 0.207 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.003 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".