Revisiting Gaussian Markov random fields and Bayesian disease mapping
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We revisit several conditionally formulated Gaussian Markov random fields, known as the intrinsic conditional autoregressive model, the proper conditional autoregressive model, and the Leroux et al. conditional autoregressive model, as well as convolution models such as the well known Besag, York and Mollie model, its (adaptive) re-parameterization, and its scaled alternatives, for their roles of modelling underlying spatial risks in Bayesian disease mapping. Analytic and simulation studies, with graphic visualizations, and disease mapping case studies, present insights and critique on these models for their nature and capacities in characterizing spatial dependencies, local influences, and spatial covariance and correlation functions, and in facilitating stabilized and efficient posterior risk prediction and inference. It is illustrated that these models are Gaussian (Markov) random fields of different spatial dependence, local influence, and (covariance) correlation functions and can play different and complementary roles in Bayesian disease mapping applications.
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 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 | 0.051 | 0.394 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.029 | 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 it