MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2170254727 · doi:10.18187/pjsor.v8i3.512

The Bias in Bayes and How to Measure it

2012· article· en· W2170254727 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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenuePakistan Journal of Statistics and Operation Research · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicGaussian Processes and Bayesian Inference
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsBayes' theoremMathematicsMeasure (data warehouse)Bayes' ruleBayes factorLikelihood functionBayesian probabilityComputationBayesian inferenceStatistical inferenceInferenceApproximate Bayesian computationStatisticsAlgorithmComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceEstimation theoryData mining

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A Bayes prior with a likelihood can give approximate confidence and provide a remarkably flexible approach to statistical inference; but is also known to provide inaccurate perhaps incorrect results. We develop a measure of Bayes bias, first examining a simple Normal model and then progressing to quite general models with scalar and vector parameters. The Bias measure can be interpreted as the lateral displacement of the location standardized likelihood function and thus provides ready access to the effect of a prior on p-values, confidence bounds, and Bayes posterior bounds. The needed computation is comparable to that for the likelihood function and thus provides an initial option for checking merits of Bayesian computation for high dimensions.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.945
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.108
GPT teacher head0.390
Teacher spread0.281 · 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