MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2088944695 · doi:10.1002/cjs.10037

Bayesian optimal design for changepoint problems

2009· article· en· W2088944695 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Juli Atherton, Benoit Charbonneau, David B. Wolfson, Lawrence Joseph, Xiaojie Zhou, Alain C. Vandal

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Statistics · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicOptimal Experimental Design Methods
Canadian institutionsJewish General HospitalMcGill University Health CentreMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOptimal designBayesian probabilityMeasure (data warehouse)Bayesian experimental designComputer scienceMathematical optimizationStatisticsFunction (biology)Prior probabilityMathematicsBayesian inferenceAlgorithmBayesian statisticsData mining

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract We investigate Bayesian optimal designs for changepoint problems. We find robust optimal designs which allow for arbitrary distributions before and after the change, arbitrary prior densities on the parameters before and after the change, and any log‐concave prior density on the changepoint. We define a new design measure for Bayesian optimal design problems as a means of finding the optimal design. Our results apply to any design criterion function concave in the design measure. We illustrate our results by finding the optimal design in a problem motivated by a previous clinical trial. The Canadian Journal of Statistics 37: 495–513; 2009 © 2009 Statistical Society of Canada

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)0.094
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.191
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.094
Threshold uncertainty score0.495

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0940.191
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.005
Scholarly communication0.0030.004
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0040.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.213
GPT teacher head0.405
Teacher spread0.191 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations4
Published2009
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of StatisticsSame topicOptimal Experimental Design MethodsFrench-language works237,207