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 OpenAlexafffund
D. A. S. Fraser

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.

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)0.039
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.182
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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.039
Threshold uncertainty score0.205

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0390.182
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.005
Science and technology studies0.0020.012
Scholarly communication0.0070.016
Open science0.0030.004
Research integrity0.0050.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.002

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

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
GenreMethods

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

Citations1
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePakistan Journal of Statistics and Operation ResearchSame topicGaussian Processes and Bayesian InferenceFrench-language works237,207