An investigation of orthogonal signal correction algorithms and their characteristics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Six different algorithms for orthogonal signal correction (OSC) are studied and compared both from an algorithmic point of view and from a prediction and analysis point of view. The algorithms have appeared under the names OSC (three alternative algorithms), direct orthogonalization (DO) and orthogonal projection to latent structures (OPLS). These algorithms can be divided into two groups. The first group has the ability to reduce the number of PLS components in the calibration models significantly by removing only one orthogonal component. The second group reduces the complexity of the calibration model by one PLS component for each orthogonal component removed. The methods are evaluated and compared using both simulated and real calibration data sets. In some cases the OSC algorithms can have quite different behaviors, such as when non‐linearities are present. However, in all cases we have studied, none of the OSC algorithms provided a significant improvement in the calibration models over using PLS on the raw data. The main advantage with OSC may lie in the possibly easier interpretation and understanding from the analysis of corrected data. Analysis of the orthogonal information removed with OSC might also be beneficial. Copyright © 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".