MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2162158270

Pseudo-Likelihood Inference Underestimates Model Uncertainty: Evidence from Bayesian Nearest Neighbours

2011· article· en· W2162158270 on OpenAlexaff
Wanhua Su, Chipman Hugh, Mu Zhu

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Iranian Statistical Society · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistical Methods and Inference
Canadian institutionsUniversity of WaterlooAcadia UniversityMacEwan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBayesian probabilityInferenceBayesian inferenceMaximum likelihoodStatisticsEconometricsMathematicsk-nearest neighbors algorithmComputer scienceArtificial intelligence
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

When using the K-nearest neighbours (KNN) method, one often ignores the uncertainty in the choice of K. To account for such uncertainty, Bayesian KNN (BKNN) has been proposed and studied (Holmes and Adams 2002; Cucala et al. 2009). We present some evi- dence to show that the pseudo-likelihood approach for BKNN, even after being corrected by Cucala et al. (2009), still significantly underestimates model uncertainty.

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)0.054
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.383
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 score0.054
Threshold uncertainty score0.284

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0540.383
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0030.008
Scholarly communication0.0040.012
Open science0.0070.006
Research integrity0.0050.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.157
GPT teacher head0.374
Teacher spread0.216 · 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

Citations0
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Iranian Statistical SocietySame topicStatistical Methods and InferenceFrench-language works237,207