Analytic Table of Contents.- 1. The Federalist Papers As a Case Study.- 1.1. Purpose.- 1.2. The Federalist papers.- 1.3. Early work.- 1.4. Recent work-pilot study.- 1.5. Plots and honesty.- 1.6. The plan of the book.- 2. Words and Their Distributions.- 2.1. Why words?.- 2.2. Variation with time.- 2.3. How frequency of use varies.- 2.4. Correlations between rates for different words.- 2.5. Pools of words.- 2.6. Word counts and their accuracies.- 2.7. Concluding remarks.- 3. The Main Study.- In the main study, we use Bayes' theorem to determine odds of authorship for each disputed paper by weighting the evidence from words. Bayesian methods enter centrally in estimating the word rates and choosing the words to use as discriminators. We use not one but an empirically based range of prior distributions. We present the results for the disputed papers and examine the sensitivity of the results to various aspects of the analysis..- 3.1. Introduction to Bayes' theorem and its applications.- 3.2. Handling unknown parameters of data distributions.- 3.3. Selection of words.- 3.4. Log odds.- 3.5 Log odds by words and word groups.- 3.6. Late Hamilton papers.- 3.7. Adjustments to the log odds.- 4. Theoretical Basis of the Main Study.- This chapter is a sequence of technical sections supporting the methods and results of the main study presented in Chapter 3. We set out the distributional assumptions, our methods of determining final odds of authorship, and the logical basis of the inference. We explain our methods for choosing prior distributions. We develop theory and approximate methods to explore the adequacy of the assumptions and to support the methods and the findings..- 4.1. The negative binomial distribution.- 4.2. Analysis of the papers of known authorship.- 4.3.Abstract structure of the main study.- 4.4 Odds factors for the negative binomial model.- 4.5. Choosing the prior distributions.- 4.6. Magnitudes of adjustments required by the modal approximation to the odds factor.- 4.7. Correlations.- 4.8. Studies of regression effects.- 4.10. Techniques in the final choice of words.- 5. Weight-Rate Analysis.- 5.1. The study, its strengths and weaknesses.- 5.2. Materials and techniques.- 5.3 Results for the screening and calibrating sets.- 5.4. Regression effects.- 5.5. Results for the disputed papers.- 6. A Robust Hand-Calculated Bayesian Analysis.- 6.1. Why a robust study?.- 6.2. Papers and words.- 6.3. Log odds for high-frequency words.- 6.4 Low-frequency words.- 6.5 The procedure for low-frequency words.- 6.6 Bayesian discussion for low-frequency words.- 6.7 Log odds for 2000-word set and validating set.- 6.8. Disputed papers.- 7. Three-Category Analysis.- 7.1. The general plan.- 7.2 Details of method.- 7.3 Groups of words.- 7.4 Results for the screening and calibrating sets.- 7.5. Regression effects.- 7.6. Results for the joint and disputed papers.- 8. Other Studies.- 8.1 How word rates vary from one text to another.- 8.2 Making simplified studies of authorship.- 8.3 The Caesar letters.- 8.4 Further analysis of Paper No. 20.- 8.5 How words are used.- 8.6 Scattered investigations.- 8.7. Distributions of word-length.- 9. Summary of Results and Conclusions.- 9.1 Results on the authorship of the disputed Federalist papers.- 9.2 Authorship problems.- 9.3 Discrimination problems.- 9.4 Remarks on Bayesian studies.- 9.5 Summing up.- 10 The State of Statistical Authorship Studies in 1984.- 10.1 Scope.- 10.2 Computers, concordances, texts, and monographs.- 10.3 General empirical work.- 10.4 Poetry versus prose.- 10.5 Authorship studies similar to the Junius or Federalist studies.- 10.6 Homogeneity problems.- 10.7Anonymous translation.- 10.8 Forensic disputes.- 10.9 Concluding remarks.- References.
