A unified approach to multiple‐set canonical correlation analysis and principal components analysis
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Multiple-set canonical correlation analysis and principal components analysis are popular data reduction techniques in various fields, including psychology. Both techniques aim to extract a series of weighted composites or components of observed variables for the purpose of data reduction. However, their objectives of performing data reduction are different. Multiple-set canonical correlation analysis focuses on describing the association among several sets of variables through data reduction, whereas principal components analysis concentrates on explaining the maximum variance of a single set of variables. In this paper, we provide a unified framework that combines these seemingly incompatible techniques. The proposed approach embraces the two techniques as special cases. More importantly, it permits a compromise between the techniques in yielding solutions. For instance, we may obtain components in such a way that they maximize the association among multiple data sets, while also accounting for the variance of each data set. We develop a single optimization function for parameter estimation, which is a weighted sum of two criteria for multiple-set canonical correlation analysis and principal components analysis. We minimize this function analytically. We conduct simulation studies to investigate the performance of the proposed approach based on synthetic data. We also apply the approach for the analysis of functional neuroimaging data to illustrate its empirical usefulness.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 it