Testing for signals with unknown location and scale in a χ<sup>2</sup>random field, with an application to fMRI
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
Siegmund and Worsley (1995) considered the problem of testing for signals with unknown location and scale in a Gaussian random field defined on ℝ N . The test statistic was the maximum of a Gaussian random field in an N +1 dimensional ‘scale space’, N dimensions for location and 1 dimension for the scale of a smoothing filter. Scale space is identical to a continuous wavelet transform with a kernel smoother as the wavelet, though the emphasis here is on signal detection rather than image compression or enhancement. Two methods were used to derive an approximate null distribution for N =2 and N =3: one based on the method of volumes of tubes, the other based on the expected Euler characteristic of the excursion set. The purpose of this paper is two-fold: to show how the latter method can be extended to higher dimensions, and to apply this more general result to χ 2 fields. The result of Siegmund and Worsley (1995) then follows as a special case. In this paper the results are applied to the problem of searching for activation in brain images obtained by functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI).
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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