8
$\begingroup$

Time to continue the CVJC series in 2012!

To remind for those who are new to the idea:

  • CVJC is a meeting on chat where we discuss some paper and its theoretical/practical surroundings.
  • It usually takes place on Friday about 18:00UTC.
  • The paper must be OpenAccess or a (p)reprint suggested previously on a meta thread like this one and selected in voting.
  • We will try to invite the author(s).

So, please suggest papers (each in one answer)! The deadline for suggestions is traditionally a week ahead, so 23:59UTC 13.1.2012 23:59UTC 20.1.2012 (postponed due to a lack of paper proposals).

EDIT: Current approximation of the spacetime coordinates is 24.2.2012 (Friday) 16:00UTC; you can (please do) register here.

EDIT: The author confirmed his presence at the event.

FINAL EDIT: This time it was not too fruitful; yet here you can find the transcript.

$\endgroup$
3
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Make sure y'all make a community promotion ad for this! :D It would help get the word out about this recurring chat event. DIY has an ad like this up on their site. $\endgroup$
    – Aarthi
    Jan 6, 2012 at 17:12
  • $\begingroup$ @Aarthi Good idea; I still forget that there are people not using AdBlock (-; $\endgroup$
    – user88
    Jan 6, 2012 at 23:18
  • $\begingroup$ fyi - akademeia.ca is a relatively new open-source journal. They've only had 2 issues so far, but might be something to keep an eye on for papers in the future. $\endgroup$
    – Lauren
    Feb 1, 2012 at 16:42

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
6
$\begingroup$

Having been brought up as a frequentist, I'm now reading up on Bayesian methods (greatly enjoying increasing the size of my statistical toolbox!). While doing a literature search I recently stumbled upon the following paper, which I think could be interesting to discuss.

Fraser, D.A.S. (2011), Is Bayes Posterior just Quick and Dirty Confidence?, Statistical Science, Vol. 26, No. 3, 299-316, arXiv:1112.5582v1 [stat.ME]

Discussions and rejoinders can be found on projecteuclid for those who have access. For those that don't, below are some of the discussion and rejoinder papers collected from the authors' websites. Some of them may not be official final versions.

Discussion by Christian P. Robert (our own Xi'an).

Discussion by K. Singh and M. Xie.

Discussion by L. Wasserman. (Not open access.)

Discussion by T. Zhang.

Rejoinder by D. A. S. Fraser.

$\endgroup$
6
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ For those that have access, there are also several "discussion" papers and a rejoinder. Links to them can be found on projecteuclid. I'm not sure if there is an open-access link to them. $\endgroup$
    – cardinal
    Jan 21, 2012 at 3:04
  • $\begingroup$ I think I saw them on arXiv, in connection with this paper. Will have a look again as soo as I have the time. $\endgroup$
    – MånsT
    Jan 21, 2012 at 17:08
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ I chased down all of them except for Larry Wasserman's. A couple of them looked like they might not be the final official version. $\endgroup$
    – cardinal
    Jan 21, 2012 at 23:26
  • $\begingroup$ I don't know whether Bayes posterior is dirty, but what I know for sure is that it's not quick! :-) $\endgroup$
    – Tomas
    Feb 20, 2012 at 20:39
  • $\begingroup$ BTW, I had a look at the paper and don't really understand what this means. Are there any practical consequences for us ecologists using WinBUGS? I'll be curious for conclusions of your debate!! $\endgroup$
    – Tomas
    Feb 20, 2012 at 20:41
  • $\begingroup$ I am probably going to be late at this starts at 5am Sat for me, but I will show up when I wake up. :) $\endgroup$
    – Michelle
    Feb 24, 2012 at 9:13

You must log in to answer this question.