scholarly journals Bayesian inference of hub nodes across multiple networks

Biometrics ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 75 (1) ◽  
pp. 172-182
Author(s):  
Junghi Kim ◽  
Kim‐Anh Do ◽  
Min Jin Ha ◽  
Christine B. Peterson
Keyword(s):  
Bayesian Inference ◽  
Multiple Networks

The Multilevel p2 Model

Methodology ◽  
2006 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 42-47 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bonne J. H. Zijlstra ◽  
Marijtje A. J. van Duijn ◽  
Tom A. B. Snijders
Keyword(s):  
Social Network ◽  
Network Data ◽  
Mcmc Algorithm ◽  
Independent Observation ◽  
Single Observation ◽  
Multiple Networks ◽  
Social Network Data ◽  
Multiple Observations ◽  
Practical Support ◽  
The Social

The p 2 model is a random effects model with covariates for the analysis of binary directed social network data coming from a single observation of a social network. Here, a multilevel variant of the p 2 model is proposed for the case of multiple observations of social networks, for example, in a sample of schools. The multilevel p 2 model defines an identical p 2 model for each independent observation of the social network, where parameters are allowed to vary across the multiple networks. The multilevel p 2 model is estimated with a Bayesian Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) algorithm that was implemented in free software for the statistical analysis of complete social network data, called StOCNET. The new model is illustrated with a study on the received practical support by Dutch high school pupils of different ethnic backgrounds.

Unifying Bayesian Inference and Vector Space Models for Improved Decipherment

2015 ◽  
Author(s):  
Qing Dou ◽  
Ashish Vaswani ◽  
Kevin Knight ◽  
Chris Dyer
Keyword(s):  
Bayesian Inference ◽  
Vector Space ◽  
Vector Space Models

How do academics assess the results of multiple experiments?

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Olmo Van den Akker ◽  
Linda Dominguez Alvarez ◽  
Marjan Bakker ◽  
Jelte M. Wicherts ◽  
Marcel A. L. M. van Assen
Keyword(s):  
Bayesian Inference ◽  
Secondary Analysis ◽  
Individual Participant Data ◽  
Additional Experiment ◽  
Underlying Theory ◽  
Individual Participant ◽  
Vote Counting

We studied how academics assess the results of a set of four experiments that all test a given theory. We found that participants’ belief in the theory increases with the number of significant results, and that direct replications were considered to be more important than conceptual replications. We found no difference between authors and reviewers in their propensity to submit or recommend to publish sets of results, but we did find that authors are generally more likely to desire an additional experiment. In a preregistered secondary analysis of individual participant data, we examined the heuristics academics use to assess the results of four experiments. Only 6 out of 312 (1.9%) participants we analyzed used the normative method of Bayesian inference, whereas the majority of participants used vote counting approaches that tend to undervalue the evidence for the underlying theory if two or more results are statistically significant.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document