MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2607081621 · doi:10.1002/cjs.11318

Bayesian analysis of a density ratio model

2017· article· en· W2607081621 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Victor De Oliveira, Benjamin Kedem

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Statistics · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistical Methods and Bayesian Inference
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBayesian probabilityMathematicsMarkov chain Monte CarloStatisticsEconometricsHumanitiesPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This work proposes a Bayesian approach for the analysis of a semiparametric density ratio model, a model useful for the integration of data from multiple sources. The proposed Bayesian analysis uses a non‐parametric likelihood and a transformed Gaussian prior for the “non‐parametric part” of the model. The former choice guarantees the validity of the Bayesian analysis in contrast to some semiparametric Bayesian analyses that rely on empirical likelihoods whereas the latter choice allows the representation of an expected smoothness property. We describe a Markov chain Monte Carlo algorithm to fit this model which was found to empirically display good convergence behaviour. The model is illustrated with the analysis of motor vibration data obtained from three different locations on a motor. The Canadian Journal of Statistics 45: 274–289; 2017 © 2017 Statistical Society of Canada

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)0.017
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.058
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 score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.092

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0170.058
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.004
Open science0.0040.002
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.079
GPT teacher head0.354
Teacher spread0.275 · 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

Citations7
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of StatisticsSame topicStatistical Methods and Bayesian InferenceFrench-language works237,207