Bibliographic record
Abstract
Identifying patterns in bivariate data on a scatterplot remains a basic statistical problem, with special flavor when both variables are on the same footing. Ideas of double, diagonal, and polar smoothing inspired by Cleveland and McGill's 1984 paper in the Journal of the American Statistical Association are revisited with various examples from environmental datasets. Double smoothing means smoothing both y given x and x given y. Diagonal smoothing means smoothing based on the sum and difference of y and x that treats the two variables symmetrically, possibly under standardization. Polar smoothing is based on the transformation from Cartesian to polar coordinates followed by smoothing and then reverse transformation; here the smoothing is implemented by regression on a series of sine and cosine terms. These methods thus offer exploratory tools for determining the broad structure of bivariate data.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.045 | 0.245 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.061 | 0.046 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".