Combining Opinions for Use in Bayesian Networks: A Measurement Error Approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<p>Bayesian networks (BNs) are graphical probabilistic models used for reasoning under uncertainty. These models are becoming increasingly popular in a range of fields including engineering, ecology, computational biology, medical diagnosis and forensics. In most of these cases, the BNs are quantified using information from experts or from users' opinions. While this quantification is straightforward for one expert, there is still debate about how to represent opinions from multiple experts in a BN. This paper proposes the use of a measurement error model to achieve this. The proposed model addresses the issues associated with current methods of combining opinions such as the absence of a coherent probability model, the loss of the conditional independence structure of the BN and the provision of only a point estimate for the consensus. The proposed model is applied to a subnetwork (the three final nodes) of a larger BN about wayfinding in airports. It is shown that the approach performs well than do existing methods of combining opinions.</p>
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 | 0.019 | 0.080 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".