Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary Realistic statistical modelling of observational data often suggests a statistical model which is not fully identified, owing to potential biases that are not under the control of study investigators. Bayesian inference can be implemented with such a model, ideally with the most precise prior knowledge that can be ascertained. However, as a consequence of the non-identifiability, inference cannot be made arbitrarily accurate by choosing the sample size to be sufficiently large. In turn, this has consequences for sample size determination. The paper presents a sample size criterion that is based on a quantification of how much Bayesian learning can arise in a given non-identified model. A global perspective is adopted, whereby choosing larger sample sizes for some studies necessarily implies that some other potentially worthwhile studies cannot be undertaken. This suggests that smaller sample sizes should be selected with non-identified models, as larger sample sizes constitute a squandering of resources in making estimator variances very small compared with their biases. Particularly, consider two investigators planning the same study, one of whom admits to the potential biases at hand and consequently uses a non-identified model, whereas the other pretends that there are no biases, leading to an identified but less realistic model. It is seen that the former investigator always selects a smaller sample size than the latter, with the difference being quite marked in some illustrative cases.
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 | 0.199 | 0.667 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 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".