MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2041121499 · doi:10.1198/016214508000000517

Combining Registration and Fitting for Functional Models

2008· article· en· W2041121499 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 the American Statistical Association · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicData Management and Algorithms
Canadian institutionsNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceEconometricsMathematicsArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AbstractA registration method can be defined as a process of aligning features of a sample of curves by monotone transformations of their domain. The aligned curves exhibit only amplitude variation, and the domain transformations, called warping functions, capture the phase variation in the original curves. In this article we precisely define a new type of registration process, in which the warping functions optimize the fit of a principal components decomposition to the aligned curves. The principal components are effectively the features that this process aligns. We discuss the relationship of registration to closure of a function space under convex operations, and define consistency for registration methods. We define an explicit decomposition of functional variation into amplitude and phase partitions, and develop an algorithm for combining registration with principal components analysis, and apply it to simulated and real data.KEY WORDS: Continuous registrationFunctional principal components analysisLandmark registrationPhase variationTime warpingWarping function

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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.810
Threshold uncertainty score0.133

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.221 · 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