MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2044198898 · doi:10.1002/bimj.200410146

Methods of Selecting Informative Variables

2006· article· en· W2044198898 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

VenueBiometrical Journal · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicOptimal Experimental Design Methods
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMathematicsDimensionality reductionPrincipal component analysisDimension (graph theory)Eigenvalues and eigenvectorsFeature selectionSelection (genetic algorithm)Design matrixPopulationSet (abstract data type)Mathematical optimizationStatisticsAlgorithmComputer scienceData miningArtificial intelligenceRegression analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We propose a new method for selection of the most informative variables from the set of variables which can be measured directly. The information is measured by metrics similar to those used in experimental design theory, such as determinant of the dispersion matrix of prediction or various functions of its eigenvalues. The basic model admits both population variability and observational errors, which allows us to introduce algorithms based on ideas of optimal experimental design. Moreover, we can take into account cost of measuring various variables which makes the approach more practical. It is shown that the selection of optimal subsets of variables is invariant to scale transformations unlike other methods of dimension reduction, such as principal components analysis or methods based on direct selection of variables, for instance principal variables and battery reduction. The performance of different approaches is compared using the clinical data.

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)0.016
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.687
Threshold uncertainty score0.994

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0160.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.012
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.183
GPT teacher head0.535
Teacher spread0.353 · 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