MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4405449519 · doi:10.1093/biomtc/ujae151

Graphical model inference with external network data

2024· article· en· W4405449519 on OpenAlexafffund
Jack Jewson, Li Li, Laura Battaglia, Stephen Hansen, David Rossell, Piotr Zwiernik

Bibliographic record

VenueBiometrics · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMental Health Research Topics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersAgencia Estatal de InvestigaciónNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaBanco Bilbao Vizcaya ArgentariaH2020 European Research CouncilChina Scholarship Council
KeywordsGraphical modelComputer scienceInferenceSample (material)Data miningStatistical inferenceInterpretation (philosophy)Variance (accounting)Probabilistic logicEnhanced Data Rates for GSM EvolutionStatistical modelArtificial intelligenceMachine learningTheoretical computer scienceStatisticsMathematicsProgramming language

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A frequent challenge when using graphical models in practice is that the sample size is limited relative to the number of parameters. They also become hard to interpret when the number of variables p gets large. We consider applications where one has external data, in the form of networks between variables, that can improve inference and help interpret the fitted model. An example of interest regards the interplay between social media and the co-evolution of the COVID-19 pandemic across USA counties. We develop a spike-and-slab prior framework that depicts how partial correlations depend on the networks, by regressing the edge probabilities, average partial correlations, and their variance on the networks. The goal is to detect when the network data relates to the graphical model and, if so, explain how. We develop computational schemes and software in R and probabilistic programming languages. Our applications show that incorporating network data can improve interpretation, statistical accuracy, and out-of-sample prediction.

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 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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.897
Threshold uncertainty score0.520

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.006
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.329
GPT teacher head0.517
Teacher spread0.188 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBiometricsSame topicMental Health Research TopicsFrench-language works237,207