MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415958133 · doi:10.3102/10769986251379738

Valid Standard Errors for Bayesian Quantile Regression With Clustered and Independent Data

2025· article· en· W4415958133 on OpenAlexafffund
Feng Ji, Joon-Ho Lee, Sophia Rabe‐Hesketh

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicBayesian Methods and Mixture Models
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of CanadaCanada Research Chairs
KeywordsJackknife resamplingFrequentist inferenceMarkov chain Monte CarloEstimatorQuantileQuantile regressionStandard errorBayesian probabilityPoint estimationOutlier

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Bayesian quantile regression typically uses the asymmetric Laplace distribution as working likelihood, not because it is a plausible data-generating distribution but because the corresponding maximum likelihood estimator is identical to the classical estimator by Koenker and Bassett. While point estimation is consistent, credible intervals tend to have poor frequentist coverage. We propose using infinitesimal jackknife (IJ) standard errors introduced by Giordano and Broderick, which do not require resampling and can be obtained from a single Markov chain Monte Carlo run. Simulations and applications to real data show that IJ standard errors have good frequentist properties for both independent and clustered data. We provide an R package, IJSE, that computes IJ standard errors after estimation of any model with the brms wrapper for Stan.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.053
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.391
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.053
Threshold uncertainty score0.281

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0530.391
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.003
Bibliometrics0.0040.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.004
Open science0.0060.003
Research integrity0.0030.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.004

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 head0.068
GPT teacher head0.406
Teacher spread0.338 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Educational and Behavioral StatisticsSame topicBayesian Methods and Mixture ModelsFrench-language works237,207