MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2508625972 · doi:10.1214/16-ba1024

Optimal Robustness Results for Relative Belief Inferences and the Relationship to Prior-Data Conflict

2016· article· en· W2508625972 on OpenAlexaff
Luai Al Labadi, Michael Evans

Bibliographic record

VenueBayesian Analysis · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistical Methods and Bayesian Inference
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRobustness (evolution)InferenceComputer scienceBayesian probabilityEconometricsBayesian inferencePrior probabilityData miningMachine learningMathematicsArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The robustness to the prior of Bayesian inference procedures based on a measure of statistical evidence is considered. These inferences are shown to have optimal properties with respect to robustness. Furthermore, a connection between robustness and prior-data conflict is established. In particular, the inferences are shown to be effectively robust when the choice of prior does not lead to prior-data conflict. When there is prior-data conflict, however, robustness may fail to hold.

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)0.068
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.385
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 score0.068
Threshold uncertainty score0.358

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0680.385
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.004
Bibliometrics0.0070.005
Science and technology studies0.0020.012
Scholarly communication0.0090.013
Open science0.0050.008
Research integrity0.0050.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.142
GPT teacher head0.400
Teacher spread0.257 · 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

Citations30
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBayesian AnalysisSame topicStatistical Methods and Bayesian InferenceFrench-language works237,207