MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Designing Fractional Factorial Split-Plot Experiments with Few Whole-Plot Factors

2004· article· en· W2110742637 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Royal Statistical Society Series C (Applied Statistics) · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicOptimal Experimental Design Methods
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFractional factorial designSplit plotRestricted randomizationPlot (graphics)FactorialFactorial experimentMathematicsDesign of experimentsMain effectStatisticsTable (database)Computer scienceAlgorithmArithmeticData miningRandomization

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Summary When it is impractical to perform the experimental runs of a fractional factorial design in a completely random order, restrictions on the randomization can be imposed. The resulting design is said to have a split-plot, or nested, error structure. Similarly to fractional factorials, fractional factorial split-plot designs can be ranked by using the aberration criterion. Techniques that generate the required designs systematically presuppose unreplicated settings of the whole-plot factors. We use a cheese-making experiment to demonstrate the practical relevance of designs with replicated settings of these factors. We create such designs by splitting the whole plots according to one or more subplot effects. We develop a systematic method to generate the required designs and we use the method to create a table of designs that is likely to be useful in practice.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.353
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.072
GPT teacher head0.369
Teacher spread0.297 · 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