MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3098349241 · doi:10.1515/1544-6115.1765

Empirical Bayes Interval Estimates that are Conditionally Equal to Unadjusted Confidence Intervals or to Default Prior Credibility Intervals

2012· article· en· W3098349241 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueStatistical Applications in Genetics and Molecular Biology · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistical Methods and Inference
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCredible intervalConfidence intervalStatisticsMathematicsCDF-based nonparametric confidence intervalConfidence distributionPosterior probabilityPoint estimationCoverage probabilityBayes' theoremPrior probabilityFrequentist inferenceBinomial proportion confidence intervalBayesian probabilityEconometricsBayesian inferencePoisson distributionNegative binomial distribution

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Problems involving thousands of null hypotheses have been addressed by estimating the local false discovery rate (LFDR). A previous LFDR approach to reporting point and interval estimates of an effect-size parameter uses an estimate of the prior distribution of the parameter conditional on the alternative hypothesis. That estimated prior is often unreliable, and yet strongly influences the posterior intervals and point estimates, causing the posterior intervals to differ from fixed-parameter confidence intervals, even for arbitrarily small estimates of the LFDR. That influence of the estimated prior manifests the failure of the conditional posterior intervals, given the truth of the alternative hypothesis, to match the confidence intervals. Those problems are overcome by changing the posterior distribution conditional on the alternative hypothesis from a Bayesian posterior to a confidence posterior. Unlike the Bayesian posterior, the confidence posterior equates the posterior probability that the parameter lies in a fixed interval with the coverage rate of the coinciding confidence interval. The resulting confidence-Bayes hybrid posterior supplies interval and point estimates that shrink toward the null hypothesis value. The confidence intervals tend to be much shorter than their fixed-parameter counterparts, as illustrated with gene expression data. Simulations nonetheless confirm that the shrunken confidence intervals cover the parameter more frequently than stated. Generally applicable sufficient conditions for correct coverage are given. In addition to having those frequentist properties, the hybrid posterior can also be motivated from an objective Bayesian perspective by requiring coherence with some default prior conditional on the alternative hypothesis. That requirement generates a new class of approximate posteriors that supplement Bayes factors modified for improper priors and that dampen the influence of proper priors on the credibility intervals. While that class of posteriors intersects the class of confidence-Bayes posteriors, neither class is a subset of the other. In short, two first principles generate both classes of posteriors: a coherence principle and a relevance principle. The coherence principle requires that all effect size estimates comply with the same probability distribution. The relevance principle means effect size estimates given the truth of an alternative hypothesis cannot depend on whether that truth was known prior to observing the data or whether it was learned from the data.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.393
Threshold uncertainty score0.908

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.140
GPT teacher head0.475
Teacher spread0.335 · 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