The sufficiency of the evidence, the relevancy of the evidence, and quantifying both with a single number
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Consider a data set as a body of evidence that might confirm or disconfirm a hypothesis about a parameter value. If the posterior probability of the hypothesis is high enough, then the truth of the hypothesis is accepted for some purpose such as reporting a new discovery. In that way, the posterior probability measures the sufficiency of the evidence for accepting the hypothesis. It would only follow that the evidence is relevant to the hypothesis if the prior probability were not already high enough for acceptance. A measure of the relevancy of the evidence is the Bayes factor since it is the ratio of the posterior odds to the prior odds. Measures of the sufficiency of the evidence and measures of the relevancy of the evidence are not mutually exclusive. An example falling in both classes is the likelihood ratio statistic, perhaps based on a pseudolikelihood function that eliminates nuisance parameters. There is a sense in which the likelihood ratio statistic measures both the sufficiency of the evidence and its relevancy. That result is established by representing the likelihood ratio statistic in terms of a conditional possibility measure that satisfies logical coherence rather than probabilistic coherence.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".