Translating Probability Density Functions: From R to BUGS and Back Again
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The ability to implement statistical models in the BUGS language facilitates Bayesian inference by automating MCMC algorithms. Software packages that interpret the BUGS language include OpenBUGS, WinBUGS, and JAGS. R packages that link BUGS software to the R environment, including rjags and R2WinBUGS, are widely used in Bayesian analysis. Indeed, many packages in the Bayesian task view on CRAN (http://cran.r-project.org/web/views/Bayesian.html) depend on this integration. However, the R and BUGS languages use different representations of common probability density functions, creating a potential for errors to occur in the implementation or interpretation of analyses that use both languages. Here we review different parameterizations used by the R and BUGS languages, describe how to translate between the languages, and provide an R function, r2bugs.distributions, that transforms parameterizations from R to BUGS and back again.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.020 | 0.118 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.072 | 0.075 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".