MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2127403744 · doi:10.1111/1467-9876.00182

Bayesian Sample Size Determination for Estimating Binomial Parameters from Data Subject to Misclassification

2000· article· en· W2127403744 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Royal Statistical Society Series C (Applied Statistics) · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistical Methods and Bayesian Inference
Canadian institutionsMontreal General HospitalMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSample size determinationStatisticsSample (material)Bayesian probabilityDegree (music)MathematicsBinomial (polynomial)Binomial distributionNegative binomial distributionEconometricsComputer sciencePoisson distribution

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

SUMMARY We investigate the sample size problem when a binomial parameter is to be estimated, but some degree of misclassification is possible. The problem is especially challenging when the degree to which misclassification occurs is not exactly known. Motivated by a Canadian survey of the prevalence of toxoplasmosis infection in pregnant women, we examine the situation where it is desired that a marginal posterior credible interval for the prevalence of width w has coverage 1−α, using a Bayesian sample size criterion. The degree to which the misclassification probabilities are known a priori can have a very large effect on sample size requirements, and in some cases achieving a coverage of 1−α is impossible, even with an infinite sample size. Therefore, investigators must carefully evaluate the degree to which misclassification can occur when estimating sample size requirements.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.694
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.057
GPT teacher head0.345
Teacher spread0.288 · 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