MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4253389928 · doi:10.2307/2669463

Bayesian Regression Modeling with Interactions and Smooth Effects

2000· article· en· W4253389928 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

VenueJournal of the American Statistical Association · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicGaussian Processes and Bayesian Inference
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceBayesian linear regressionInterpretation (philosophy)Bayesian probabilityComputationMachine learningRegressionArtificial intelligenceBivariate analysisModel selectionRegression analysisGaussian processBayesian inferenceAlgorithmGaussianMathematicsStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract There have been many recent suggestions as to how to build and estimate flexible Bayesian regression models, using constructs such as trees, neural networks, and Gaussian processes. Although there is much to commend these methods, their implementation and interpretation can be daunting for practitioners. This article presents a spline-based methodology for flexible Bayesian regression that is quite simple in terms of computation and interpretation. Smooth bivariate interactions are modeled in an economical and apparently novel way, and prior distributions that penalize complexity are used. Predictions can be based on either model selection or model averaging. Taking computation, interpretation, and predictive performance into account, the method is seen to perform well when applied to simulated and real 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.959
Threshold uncertainty score0.173

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.239 · 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