Re‐centered kurtosis as a projection pursuit index for multivariate data 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
High‐dimensional data, which have become common in analytical chemistry, are often rich in information, but useful information may not be discovered without applying advanced data analysis methods. As a powerful tool for exploratory data analysis, projection pursuit (PP) is less widely used in chemistry compared with other methods such as principal component analysis (PCA), although PP often gives better results than PCA. PP does not have a uniquely defined objective function (projection index), and different statistics have been proposed as projection indices. Kurtosis has been widely employed as a projection index, and minimization of kurtosis is helpful in revealing clusters. However, this method often fails when the clusters in a data set are not balanced (i.e., present in unequal proportions). In this work, a newly defined kurtosis, referred to as “re‐centered kurtosis,” is proposed as a projection index. The theory and the optimization algorithms for the re‐centered kurtosis are developed. The utility of the PP method using the proposed re‐centered kurtosis as a projection index to reveal unbalanced clusters is demonstrated by simulated and real experimental data. Copyright © 2013 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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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