Log-odds — where it appears
Named by 3 essays across 2 fields — each of them below, with the objects they name alongside it.
Pooling a proportion
A proportion cannot be shrunk on its own scale — an estimate would leave the interval, and how much information a count carries depends on where it sits. Move to log-odds and the approximation works, at the price of a group that saw nothing having no estimate at all until the correction supplies one.
The shortest interval, and the one that does not move
Two 95% intervals come out of every posterior and they are not the same set. The shorter one is shorter by 4.86% on average and 22.41% at its best, it covers 86.72% where the other covers 95.68%, and it is not even the shortest once the parameter is written a different way.
An interval for something else
An interval for the odds is free — put the endpoints through the odds and the coverage does not move, exactly, for any interval at all. The method everyone uses instead computes a new standard error on the new scale, and at twenty trials that costs four points of coverage, produces negative odds, and has no value at all when nothing was observed.
Named alongside it
The objects these essays reach for when they reach for this one.
PosteriorCoverageCredible intervalDiscretenessJeffreys' priorMonotone transformationOddsBinomial proportionDelta methodEqual-tailed intervalHierarchical modelHighest posterior density