MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1993481816 · doi:10.1002/cjs.11190

The factor aliased effect number pattern and its application in experimental planning

2013· article· en· W1993481816 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.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Statistics · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicOptimal Experimental Design Methods
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaMcMaster University
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsFractional factorial designRank (graph theory)Ranking (information retrieval)Factorial experimentFactor (programming language)Design of experimentsComputer scienceStatisticsPaired comparisonMathematicsMachine learningCombinatorics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Optimality criteria are usually used to choose fractional factorial designs in applications. Within an optimal design, the effects of factors assigned to different columns may be estimated with different precisions. Among factors to be investigated in an experiment, the user often has prior information on their relative importance. Thus, it is beneficial to assign most important factors to columns enabling most precise estimation. In this paper, we introduce a criterion to rank the columns of a regular design and use the criterion to GMC designs accordingly. We study the mathematical properties of the new ranking practice and provide concrete guidance on assigning factors in some GMC designs. The Canadian Journal of Statistics 41: 540–555; 2013 © 2013 Statistical Society of Canada

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.411
Threshold uncertainty score0.354

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.083
GPT teacher head0.407
Teacher spread0.324 · 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