Developing Critical Thinking About Reporting of Bayesian Analyses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Graduate students in the health sciences who hope to become independent researchers must be able to write up their results at a standard suitable for submission to peer-reviewed journals. Bayesian analyses are still rare in the medical literature, and students are often unclear on what should be included in a manuscript. Whilst there are published guidelines on reporting of Bayesian analyses, students should also be encouraged to think about why some items need to be reported whereas others do not. We describe a classroom activity in which students develop their own reporting guideline. The guideline that the students produce is not intended to replace existing guidelines, rather we have found that the process of developing the guideline is helpful in encouraging students to think through the “why?” as well as the “what?” of reporting.
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 | 0.398 | 0.688 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.019 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.018 | 0.025 |
| Open science | 0.010 | 0.014 |
| Research integrity | 0.012 | 0.025 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.004 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".