MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2781889414 · doi:10.51291/2377-7478.1289

The value of Bayesian statistics for assessing credible evidence of animal sentience

2017· article· en· W2781889414 on OpenAlexaff
Anil K. Seth, Zoltán Dienes

Bibliographic record

VenueAnimal Sentience · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldVeterinary
TopicAnimal testing and alternatives
Canadian institutionsCanadian Institute for Advanced Research
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSentienceBayesian probabilityBayesian statisticsBayes' theoremBayes factorStatisticsValue (mathematics)EconometricsBayesian inferencePsychologyComputer scienceMathematicsArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Determining what constitutes practically relevant, statistically significant evidence for animal sentience, under the precautionary principle, could be enhanced through Bayesian statistics. A Bayesian approach allows the incorporation of multiple evidence sources through prior probabilities, the tracking of changing evidence across time, and a principled means of adjusting evidentiary bars via Bayes factors.

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)0.097
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.484
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.903
Threshold uncertainty score0.514

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0970.484
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.002
Bibliometrics0.0120.005
Science and technology studies0.0020.012
Scholarly communication0.0070.011
Open science0.0030.005
Research integrity0.0050.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.256
GPT teacher head0.473
Teacher spread0.217 · 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.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
DomainMethods
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

Citations26
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnimal SentienceSame topicAnimal testing and alternativesFrench-language works237,207