MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2809946144 · doi:10.5539/ijsp.v7n4p91

The Bayes Factor for the Misclassified Categorical Data

2018· article· en· W2809946144 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Tze-San Lee

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Statistics and Probability · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicAdvanced Statistical Methods and Models
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCategorical variableStatisticsMathematicsBayes factorMultinomial distributionNull hypothesisEstimatorBayesian probabilityNull (SQL)Chi-square testStatistical hypothesis testingp-valueEconometricsBayes' theoremComputer scienceData mining

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article addresses the issue of misclassification in a single categorical variable, that is, how to test whether the collected categorical data are misclassified. To tackle this issue, a pair of null and alternative hypotheses is proposed. A mixed Bayesian approach is taken to test these hypotheses. Specifically, a bias-adjusted cell proportion estimator is presented that accounts for the bias caused by classification errors in the observed categorical data. The chi-square test is then adjusted accordingly. To test the null hypothesis that the data are not misclassified under a specified multinomial distribution against the alternative hypothesis they are misclassified, the Bayes factor is calculated for the observed data and a comparison is made with the classical p-value.

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)0.059
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.310
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.059
Threshold uncertainty score0.313

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0590.310
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0050.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0040.005
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.269
GPT teacher head0.474
Teacher spread0.205 · 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

Citations1
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Statistics and ProbabilitySame topicAdvanced Statistical Methods and ModelsFrench-language works237,207