Objective Priors for Model Selection in One-Way Random Effects Models.” Submitted to The Canadian journal of Statistics
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
It is broadly accepted that the Bayes factor is a key tool in model selection. Nevertheless, it is an important, difficult and still open question which priors should be used to develop objective (or default) Bayes factors. We consider this problem in the context of the one-way random effects model. Arguments based on concepts like orthogonality, matching predictive, and invariance are used to justify a specific form of the priors, in which the (proper) prior for the new parameter (using Jeffreys ’ terminology) has to be determined. Two different proposals for this proper prior have been derived: the intrinsic priors and the divergence based priors, a recently proposed methodology. It will be seen that the divergence based priors produce consistent Bayes factors. The methods are illustrated on examples and compared with other proposals. Finally, the divergence based priors and the associated Bayes factor are derived for the unbalanced case.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it