MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2105136387 · doi:10.1002/cem.809

Shifted factor analysis—Part II: Algorithms

2003· article· en· W2105136387 on OpenAlexaff
Sungjin Hong, Richard A. Harshman

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Chemometrics · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicBlind Source Separation Techniques
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputationAlgorithmPosition (finance)Factor (programming language)Computer scienceFactor analysisSynthetic dataConjectureMathematicsMachine learningDiscrete mathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract We previously proposed a family of models that deal with the problem of factor position shift in sequential data. We conjectured that the added information provided by fitting the shifts would make the model parameters identifiable, even for two‐way data. We now derive methods of parameter estimation and give the results of experiments with synthetic data. The alternating least squares (ALS) approach is not fully suitable for estimation, because factor position shifts destroy the multilinearity of the latent structure. Therefore an alternative ‘quasi‐ALS’ approach is developed, some of its practical and theoretical properties are dealt with and several versions of the quasi‐ALS algorithm are described in detail. These procedures are quite computation‐intensive, but analysis of synthetic data demonstrates that the algorithms can recover shifting latent factor structure and, in the situations tested, are robust against high error levels. The results of these experiments also provide strong empirical support for our conjecture that the two‐way shifted factor model has unique solutions in at least some circumstances. Copyright © 2003 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 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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
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 score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.030

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.004

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.254 · 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

Citations25
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of ChemometricsSame topicBlind Source Separation TechniquesFrench-language works237,207