Bibliographic record
Abstract
The measurement of statistical evidence is of considerable current interest in fields where statistical criteria are used to determine knowledge. The most commonly used approach to measuring such evidence is through the use of p-values, even though these are known to possess a number of properties that lead to doubts concerning their validity as measures of evidence. It is less well known that there are alternatives with the desired properties of a measure of statistical evidence. The measure of evidence given by the relative belief ratio is employed in this paper. A relative belief multiple testing algorithm was developed to control for false positives and false negatives through bounds on the evidence determined by measures of bias. The relative belief multiple testing algorithm was shown to be consistent and to possess an optimal property when considering the testing of a hypothesis randomly chosen from the collection of considered hypotheses. The relative belief multiple testing algorithm was applied to the problem of inducing sparsity. Priors were chosen via elicitation, and sparsity was induced only when justified by the evidence and there was no dependence on any particular form of a prior for this purpose.
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 | 0.169 | 0.559 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.020 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".