Prior distribution assessment for a multivariate normal distribution: An experimental study
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A variety of methods of eliciting a prior distribution for a multivariate normal (MVN) distribution have recently been proposed. This paper reports an experiment in which 16 meteorologists used the methods to quantify their opinions about climatology variables. Our results compare prior models and show, in particular, that it can be better to assume the mean and variance of an MVN distribution are independent a priori, rather than to model opinion by the conjugate prior distribution. Using a proper scoring rule, different forms of assessment task are examined and alternative ways of estimating parameters are compared. To quantify opinion about means, it proved preferable to ask directly about the means rather than individual observations while, to quantify opinion about the variance matrix, it was best to ask about deviations from the mean. Further results include recommendations for the way parameters of the prior distribution are estimated.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it