Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper we consider a (possibly continuous) space of Bernoulli experiments. We assume that the Bernoulli distributions are correlated. All evidence data comes in the form of successful or failed experiments at different points. Current state-ofthe-art methods for expressing a distribution over a continuum of Bernoulli distributions use logistic Gaussian processes or Gaussian copula processes. However, both of these require computationally expensive matrix operations (cubic in the general case). We introduce a more intuitive approach, directly correlating beta distributions by sharing evidence between them according to a kernel function, an approach which has linear time complexity. The approach can easily be extended to multiple outcomes, giving a continuous correlated Dirichlet process, and can be used for both classification and learning the actual probabilities of the Bernoulli distributions. We show results for a number of data sets, as well as a case-study where a mixture of continuous beta processes is used as part of an automated stroke rehabilitation system. 1
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 | 0.013 | 0.047 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.002 |
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".