Bibliographic record
Abstract
We saw in Chapters 3 and 4 the concerns that arise from having to choose appropriate performance measures. Once a performance measure is decided upon, the next obvious concern is to find a good method for testing the learning algorithm so as to obtain as unbiased an estimate of the chosen performance measure as possible. Also of interest is the related concern of whether the technique we use to obtain such an estimate brings us as close as possible to the true measure value. Ideally we would have access to the entire population and test our classifiers on it. Even if the entire population were not available, if a lot of representative data from that population could be obtained, error estimation would be quite simple. It would consist of testing the algorithms on the data they were trained on. Although such an estimate, commonly known as the resubstitution error , is usually optimistically biased, as the number of instances in the dataset increases, it tends toward the true error rate. Realistically, however, we are given a significantly limited-sized sample of the population. Areliable alternative thus consists of testing the algorithm on a large set of unseen data points. This approach is commonly known as the holdout method. Unfortunately, such an approach still requires quite a lot of data for testing the algorithm's performance, which is relatively rare in most practical situation.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.050 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.033 | 0.018 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".