On the selection of samples for multivariate regression analysis: application to near-infrared (NIR) calibration models for the prediction of pulp yield in <i>Eucalyptus nitens</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The effects of using reduced calibration sets on the development of near-infrared (NIR) calibration models for the prediction of kraft pulp yield in Eucalyptus nitens (Dean & Maiden) Maiden trees were explored. Three selection techniques based on NIR spectral data (CADEX (computer-aided design of experiments), DUPLEX, and SELECT algorithms) and one selection method based on a measured property (RANKING algorithm) were used for analysis and compared against a model using all data. The effect of using calibration sets of different sizes was also evaluated. All sample-selection methods resulted in models of similar performance compared with the model fitted using all samples. For calibration purposes, RANKING selection resulted in models with the lowest errors of cross-validation, followed by the DUPLEX, CADEX, and SELECT methods. In terms of validation, the SELECT and CADEX methods resulted in lower errors of prediction compared with the DUPLEX and RANKING algorithms. In general, cross-validation and prediction errors decreased as the number of calibration samples increased. These results show that it is possible to obtain adequate NIR calibration models with a reduced number of samples allowing the remaining samples to be used for model validation and that sample selection based on NIR spectral data alone is as successful as selection based on a measured property.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".