MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1988997080 · doi:10.1080/00401706.2012.727751

Global Sensitivity Analysis for Mixture Experiments

2012· article· en· W1988997080 on OpenAlexafffund
Jason L. Loeppky, Brian J. Williams, Leslie M. Moore

Bibliographic record

VenueTechnometrics · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicProbabilistic and Robust Engineering Design
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia, Okanagan Campus
FundersLos Alamos National LaboratoryNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaNational Nuclear Security AdministrationU.S. Department of Energy
KeywordsSensitivity (control systems)Computer scienceProcess (computing)Code (set theory)Gaussian processFunction (biology)Mixture modelDesign of experimentsGaussianAlgorithmSource codeComputer experimentSimulationMathematical optimizationStatisticsMathematicsArtificial intelligenceEngineeringProgramming language

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A mixture experiment is characterized by having two or more inputs that are specified as a percentage contribution to a total amount of material. In such situations, the input variables are correlated because they must sum to one. Consequently, additional care must be taken when fitting statistical models or visualizing the effect of one or more inputs on the response. In this article, we consider the use of a Gaussian process to model the output from a computer simulator taking a mixture input. We introduce a procedure to perform global sensitivity analysis of the code output providing main effects and revealing interactions. The resulting methodology is illustrated using a function with analytically tractable results for comparison, a chemical compositional simulator, and a physical experiment. Supplementary materials providing assistance with implementing this methodology are available online.

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)0.018
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.045
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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.098

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0180.045
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.004
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.000

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 head0.148
GPT teacher head0.388
Teacher spread0.240 · 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
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

Citations9
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTechnometricsSame topicProbabilistic and Robust Engineering DesignFrench-language works237,207