Transmission of linear regression patterns between time series: From relationship in time series to complex networks
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
The linear regression parameters between two time series can be different under different lengths of observation period. If we study the whole period by the sliding window of a short period, the change of the linear regression parameters is a process of dynamic transmission over time. We tackle fundamental research that presents a simple and efficient computational scheme: a linear regression patterns transmission algorithm, which transforms linear regression patterns into directed and weighted networks. The linear regression patterns (nodes) are defined by the combination of intervals of the linear regression parameters and the results of the significance testing under different sizes of the sliding window. The transmissions between adjacent patterns are defined as edges, and the weights of the edges are the frequency of the transmissions. The major patterns, the distance, and the medium in the process of the transmission can be captured. The statistical results of weighted out-degree and betweenness centrality are mapped on timelines, which shows the features of the distribution of the results. Many measurements in different areas that involve two related time series variables could take advantage of this algorithm to characterize the dynamic relationships between the time series from a new perspective.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 it