MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1921128344 · doi:10.1002/sta4.74

Spanifold: spanning tree flattening onto lower dimension

2015· article· en· W1921128344 on OpenAlexafffund
Shojaeddin Chenouri, Petr Kobelevskiy, Christopher G. Small

Bibliographic record

VenueStat · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicFace and Expression Recognition
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsDimensionality reductionIsomapIntrinsic dimensionMathematicsData pointNonlinear dimensionality reductionPairwise comparisonMinimum spanning treeFlatteningTree (set theory)Dimension (graph theory)Hessian matrixManifold (fluid mechanics)Curse of dimensionalityEnergy minimizationEmbeddingAlgorithmCombinatoricsComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Dimensionality reduction and manifold learning techniques attempt to recover a lower‐dimensional submanifold from the data as encoded in high dimensions. Many techniques, linear or non‐linear, have been introduced in the literature. Standard methods, such as Isomap and local linear embedding, map the high‐dimensional data points into a low dimension so as to globally minimize a so‐called energy function, which measures the mismatch between the precise geometry in high dimensions and the approximate geometry in low dimensions. However, the local effects of such minimizations are often unpredictable, because the energy minimization algorithms are global in nature. In contrast to these methods, the Spanifold algorithm of this paper constructs a tree on the manifold and flattens the manifold in such a way as to approximately preserve pairwise distance relationships within the tree. The vertices of this tree are the data points, and the edges of the tree form a subset of the edges of the nearest‐neighbour graph on the data. In addition, the pairwise distances between data points close to the root of the tree undergo minimal distortion as the data are flattened. This allows the user to design the flattening algorithm so as to approximately preserve neighbour relationships in any chosen local region of the data. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.002

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.225 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations1
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStatSame topicFace and Expression RecognitionFrench-language works237,207