MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2403597675

How Well Do We Know Bernoulli

2012· book-chapter· en· W2403597675 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.

Bibliographic record

VenueResearch Padua Archive (University of Padua) · 2012
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicText and Document Classification Technologies
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceSmoothingArtificial intelligenceMachine learningBernoulli's principleEstimatorNaive Bayes classifierBayes' theoremBayesian probabilityBernoulli distributionVisualizationPattern recognition (psychology)Data miningMathematicsStatisticsRandom variableSupport vector machineComputer visionEngineering
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Naive Bayes probabilistic models are widely used in text categorization because of their efficient model training and good empirical results. Bayesian classifiers face a common issue called data sparsity problem which makes an adequate estimation of probabilities a difficult task. Therefore, smoothing techniques are needed in order to adjust the maximum likelihood estimators. In this preliminary paper we make use of a visualization technique to further investigate the expressiveness of the well known Bernoulli Naive Bayes classifier. Various smoothing methods are tested by means of a visual analysis which makes the estimation of optimal parameters straightforward. Experimental results demonstrated that: (1) visual analysis is a valuable tool for understanding the behaviour of smoothing methods and their limits (2) the Bernoulli multivariate model performance can increase significantly with a suitable setting of smoothing parameters.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-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: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.739
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0040.003
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.069
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.205 · 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