https://nova.newcastle.edu.au/vital/access/ /manager/Index en-au 5 Sequence count data are poorly fit by the negative binomial distribution https://nova.newcastle.edu.au/vital/access/ /manager/Repository/uon:40526 Wed 13 Jul 2022 15:30:44 AEST ]]> Were Clopper & Pearson (1934) too careful? https://nova.newcastle.edu.au/vital/access/ /manager/Repository/uon:15306 Wed 11 Apr 2018 16:43:44 AEST ]]> Estimation of the Binomial parameter: in defence of Bayes (1763) https://nova.newcastle.edu.au/vital/access/ /manager/Repository/uon:733 Thu 11 Jul 2019 17:47:20 AEST ]]> Posterior predictive arguments in favor of the Bayes-Laplace prior as the consensus prior for binomial and multinomial parameters https://nova.newcastle.edu.au/vital/access/ /manager/Repository/uon:6955 Sat 24 Mar 2018 08:38:12 AEDT ]]> Assessment of the randomization test for binomial sex-ratio distributions in birds https://nova.newcastle.edu.au/vital/access/ /manager/Repository/uon:1833 Sat 24 Mar 2018 08:31:15 AEDT ]]> Simplifying life through Bayes: hints for practitioners new to Bayesian inference https://nova.newcastle.edu.au/vital/access/ /manager/Repository/uon:26073 Sat 24 Mar 2018 07:31:30 AEDT ]]> A comparison of bayes-laplace, jeffreys, and other priors: the case of zero events https://nova.newcastle.edu.au/vital/access/ /manager/Repository/uon:4882 1) seems appropriate, while a beta(a, b) with a < 1 can be too informative. It is thus argued that sensitivity analysis of an informative prior should be based on a consensus posterior corresponding to the Bayes–Laplace prior rather than the Jeffreys prior.]]> Sat 24 Mar 2018 07:22:01 AEDT ]]>