MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1965247940 · doi:10.2307/3315869

Bounds on the maximum number of clear two‐factor interactions for 2<sup><i>m‐p</i></sup> designs of resolution III and IV

2002· article· en· W1965247940 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Boxin Tang, Feng-shi Ma, Debra Ingram, Hong Wang

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Statistics · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicOptimal Experimental Design Methods
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Science Foundation
KeywordsFactor (programming language)Fractional factorial designResolution (logic)MathematicsUpper and lower boundsCombinatoricsFactorial experimentStatisticsComputer scienceMathematical analysisArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The authors derive upper and lower bounds on the maximum number of clear two‐factor interactions in 2 m−p fractional factorial designs of resolution III and IV. A two‐factor interaction is said to be clear if it is not aliased with any main effect or with any other two‐factor interaction. The lower bounds are obtained by exhibiting specific designs. By comparing the bounds with the values of the maximum number of clear two‐factor interactions in cases where it is known, one concludes that the construction methods perform quite well.

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)0.069
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.190
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.069
Threshold uncertainty score0.364

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0690.190
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0040.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.004
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.006
Scholarly communication0.0030.006
Open science0.0030.005
Research integrity0.0030.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.218
GPT teacher head0.407
Teacher spread0.188 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations47
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of StatisticsSame topicOptimal Experimental Design MethodsFrench-language works237,207