DEFINITION OF OUTLIERS USING UNSUPERVISED PRINCIPAL COMPONENT SIMILARITY ANALYSIS FOR SENSORY EVALUATION OF FOODS
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
As unsupervised classifications, principal component similarity (PCS) and cluster analysis (CA) were compared for outlier detectability in panel evaluation. By rotating the reference, PCS can define outlying panelists based on the similarity of their evaluation patterns with that of the reference panelist. As a result, the outliers detected on PCS scattergrams are dependent on the reference selected, whereas, outliers detected by CA are based on dissimilarity, thus being rather unilateral. The definition of outliers in PCS is new as it is different from the currently most popular definitions based on dissimilarity. For verifying the outliers thus obtained, random-centroid optimization (RCO) was applied for selecting the best samples by each cluster of panelists. This combination of PCS/RCO may be useful in finding the likeness distribution among consumers and then in creating food products to correctly respond to the demands of different consumer groups.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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