On the Relationship Between Confidence Sets and Exchangeable Weights in Multiple Linear Regression
Bibliographic record
Abstract
When statistical models are employed to provide a parsimonious description of empirical relationships, the extent to which strong conclusions can be drawn rests on quantifying the uncertainty in parameter estimates. In multiple linear regression (MLR), regression weights carry two kinds of uncertainty represented by confidence sets (CSs) and exchangeable weights (EWs). Confidence sets quantify uncertainty in estimation whereas the set of EWs quantify uncertainty in the substantive interpretation of regression weights. As CSs and EWs share certain commonalities, we clarify the relationship between these two kinds of uncertainty about regression weights. We introduce a general framework describing how CSs and the set of EWs for regression weights are estimated from the likelihood-based and Wald-type approach, and establish the analytical relationship between CSs and sets of EWs. With empirical examples on posttraumatic growth of caregivers (Cadell et al., 2014; Schneider, Steele, Cadell & Hemsworth, 2011) and on graduate grade point average (Kuncel, Hezlett & Ones, 2001), we illustrate the usefulness of CSs and EWs for drawing strong scientific conclusions. We discuss the importance of considering both CSs and EWs as part of the scientific process, and provide an Online Appendix with R code for estimating Wald-type CSs and EWs for k regression weights.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.158 | 0.617 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.019 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".