MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2099172632 · doi:10.1007/s004420100720

How well do multivariate data sets match? The advantages of a Procrustean superimposition approach over the Mantel test

2001· article· en· W2099172632 on OpenAlexafffund
Pedro R. Peres‐Neto, Donald A. Jackson

Bibliographic record

VenueOecologia · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicMorphological variations and asymmetry
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaConselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico
KeywordsMantel testSuperimpositionMultivariate statisticsType I and type II errorsBiologyStatisticConcordanceTest statisticStatisticsDistance matrices in phylogenyMultivariate analysisResamplingTest (biology)Association (psychology)Statistical hypothesis testingMathematicsEcologyComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceGenetic variationBioinformaticsPsychologyGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex
No abstract in any covered source. Its absence is recorded, not treated as a negative.

No abstract. This is not a gap in this database; OpenAlex has none either. 23.3% of the frame is in this state, and the screen finds HALF as much metaresearch here, so the absence is a measured bias rather than a missing field.

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)0.055
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.281
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 score0.055
Threshold uncertainty score0.290

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0550.281
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.002
Bibliometrics0.0100.014
Science and technology studies0.0020.005
Scholarly communication0.0080.013
Open science0.0030.004
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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 head0.066
GPT teacher head0.324
Teacher spread0.258 · 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

Citations980
Published2001
Admission routes2
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueOecologiaSame topicMorphological variations and asymmetryFrench-language works237,207