MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1969881184 · doi:10.1002/cem.679

The GIFI approach to non‐linear PLS modeling

2001· article· en· W1969881184 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Chemometrics · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicSpectroscopy and Chemometric Analyses
Canadian institutionsTembec
FundersVetenskapsrådetKnut och Alice Wallenbergs Stiftelse
KeywordsPrincipal component analysisLinear regressionCoding (social sciences)Principal component regressionComputer scienceSet (abstract data type)RegressionRegression analysisData setTransformation (genetics)Linear modelMathematicsData miningStatisticsArtificial intelligenceMachine learningChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The GIFI approach to non‐linear modeling involves the transformation of quantitative variables to a set of 1/0 dummies in a similar manner to the way qualitative variables are coded. This is followed by analyzing the sets of 1/0 dummies by principal component analysis, multiple regression or, as discussed here, PLS. The patterns of the resulting coefficients indicate the nature of the non‐linearities in the data. Here the potential uses and limitations of PLS regression, in combination with four variants of GIFI coding, are investigated using both simulated and empirical data sets. Copyright © 2001 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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.296
Threshold uncertainty score0.578

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.005
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.038
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.259 · 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