MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2084976008 · doi:10.1002/cjs.11174

D‐optimal minimax fractional factorial designs

2013· article· en· W2084976008 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Dennis K. J. Lin, Julie Zhou

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Statistics · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicOptimal Experimental Design Methods
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsMinimaxFractional factorial designMathematicsFactorial experimentPlackett–Burman designFactorialInvariant (physics)Optimal designMathematical optimizationApplied mathematicsStatisticsResponse surface methodology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The D‐optimal minimax criterion is proposed to construct fractional factorial designs. The resulting designs are very efficient, and robust against misspecification of the effects in the linear model. The criterion was first proposed by Wilmut & Zhou (2011); their work is limited to two‐level factorial designs, however. In this paper we extend this criterion to designs with factors having any levels (including mixed levels) and explore several important properties of this criterion. Theoretical results are obtained for construction of fractional factorial designs in general. This minimax criterion is not only scale invariant, but also invariant under level permutations. Moreover, it can be applied to any run size. This is an advantage over some other existing criteria. The Canadian Journal of Statistics 41: 325–340; 2013 © 2013 Statistical Society of Canada

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.023
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.056
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.121

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0230.056
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.196
GPT teacher head0.404
Teacher spread0.208 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations9
Published2013
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of StatisticsSame topicOptimal Experimental Design MethodsFrench-language works237,207