MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1502399419

Minimum description length methods of medium-scale simultaneous inference

2010· article· en· W1502399419 on OpenAlexaff
David R. Bickel

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicSpectroscopy and Chemometric Analyses
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMinimum description lengthInferenceFeature selectionBayes' theoremComputer scienceStatisticScale (ratio)Parametric statisticsFeature (linguistics)Selection (genetic algorithm)AlgorithmData miningMathematicsPattern recognition (psychology)Artificial intelligenceStatisticsBayesian probability
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AbstractNonparametricstatisticalmethodsdevelopedforanalyzingdataforhighnumbersofgenes,SNPs,orotherbiologicalfeatures tend to overfit data with smaller numbers of features such as proteins, metabolites, or, when expression ismeasured with conventional instruments, genes. For this medium-scale inference problem, the minimum descriptionlength(MDL)frameworkquantifiestheamountofinformationinthedatasupportinganulloralternativehypothesisfor each feature in terms of parametric model selection. Two new MDL techniques are proposed. First, using teststatistics that are highly informative about the parameter of interest, the data are reduced to a single statistic perfeature. This simplifying step is already implicit in conventional hypothesis testing and has been found effective inempirical Bayes applications to genomics data. Second, the codelength difference between the alternative and nullhypotheses of any given feature can take advantage of information in the measurements from all other features byusingthosemeasurementstofindtheoverallcodeofminimumlengthsummedoverthosefeatures. Thetechniquesareapplied to protein abundance data, demonstrating that a computationally efficient approximation that is close for asufficientlylargenumberoffeaturesworkswellevenwhenthenumberoffeaturesisaslowas20. Moregenerally,theMDL-basedinformationfordiscriminationdoesnotsufferfromtheasymmetryofthep-valueasameasureofevidenceforonehypothesisoveranother.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.019
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.065
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.101

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0190.065
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.004
Open science0.0050.005
Research integrity0.0020.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.023
GPT teacher head0.347
Teacher spread0.325 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations7
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSpectroscopy and Chemometric AnalysesFrench-language works237,207