‘Stretch’ vs ‘slice’ methods for representing three‐way structure via matrix notation
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
Abstract A three‐way array must be represented in two‐way form if its structure is to be described and manipulated by means of matrix notation. Historically, two methods, here called ‘array stretching’ and ‘array slicing’, have been used. More recently, however, array slicing has often been overlooked, resulting in a loss of mathematical flexibility. ‘Stretching’ involves matricizing (unfolding) the three‐way array and applying one's mathematical operations to the resulting two‐way matrix; this results in expressions that are often quite useful for parameter estimation but which are relatively long and require practice to interpret properly. ‘Slicing’ involves taking a representative two‐way subarray and applying operations to it; this often gives compact and easily understood expressions but requires the introduction of extra matrix names and becomes awkward if the array is not ‘slicewise regular’. In this paper the advantages of each approach are demonstrated and compared by applying them to a set of models from the Tucker and Parafac families. In addition, we show how slicewise representation can be improved by using (i) angle brackets to eliminate the need for extra diagonal matrices, and (ii) ‘encapsulated summation’ notation to allow representation of array structure that is orderly but not slicewise regular. Copyright © 2002 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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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