MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3180447411 · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2107.05145

Discovery of Bayes' Table at Tunbridge Wells

2021· preprint· en· W3180447411 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

VenuearXiv (Cornell University) · 2021
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicProbability and Statistical Research
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBayes' theoremNaive Bayes classifierBayes error rateTable (database)Bayes' ruleMathematicsBayes factorStatisticsPrior probabilityBayes classifierBayesian probabilityComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceData mining

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In 1755 Thomas Bayes expressed an interest in the problem of combining repeated measurements of the location of a star. Bayes described a tandem set-up of a ball thrown on a table, followed by repeated throws of a second ball. Bayes' table has long been taken as a billiard table, for which there is no evidence. We report the discovery of Bayes' table, a bowling green located half a km uphill (SE) from the meeting house where Bayes served as minister for two decades. Bayes' drawing shows a rectangular space marked off in yards, which allows calculation of an interval measurement of uncertainty. The Bayes rule interval from 2.5% to 97.5% is from 0.56 - 0.42 = 0.12 perches equivalent to 0.61 m. The discovery of Bayes' table establishes the physical basis for Bayes' symmetrical probability model, a fixed parameter binomial (θ = 0.5). The discovery establishes Bayes as the founder of statistical science, defined as the application of mathematics to scientific measurement.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.155
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
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 science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.183
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.074 · 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