Empirical Bayesball Remixed: Empirical Bayes Methods for Longitudinal Data
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary Empirical Bayes methods for Gaussian and binomial compound decision problems involving longitudinal data are considered. A recent convex optimization reformulation of the nonparametric maximum likelihood estimator of Kiefer and Wolfowitz ( Annals of Mathematical Statistics 1956; 27 : 887–906) is employed to construct nonparametric Bayes rules for compound decisions. The methods are illustrated with an application to predict baseball batting averages, and the age profile of batting performance. An important aspect of the empirical application is the general bivariate specification of the distribution of heterogeneous location and scale effects for players that exhibits a weak positive association between location and scale attributes. Prediction of players' batting averages for 2012 based on performance in the prior decade using the proposed methods shows substantially improved performance over more naive methods with more restrictive treatment of unobserved heterogeneity. Comparisons are also made with nonparametric Bayesian methods based on Dirichlet process priors, which can be viewed as a regularized, or smoothed, version of the Kiefer–Wolfowitz method. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it