Reliability of Sequence-Alignment Analysis of Social Processes: Monte Carlo Tests of Clustalg Software
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sequences of characters are used in many fields to record events or processes that characterize social processes. However, until recently, there have been very few methods available for the analysis of character-sequence data. Alignment algorithms measure similarities between pairs of sequences by inserting gaps into one or the other to create the best possible matching pattern. In this paper the reliability of alignments in the classification of sequential data is examined. Alignment methods were developed in computational biology, but are being considered for applications in other fields such as sociology, geography, and transportation planning. The ClustalG multiple alignment package is used to examine a set of synthetic sequences generated through the use of eight separate generation rules. Through the application of the software to sequential data with a known number of subgroups and known patterns in the sequences, some strategies for conducting the analysis can be compared and evaluated. The most effective strategy for analysing sequential data when the underlying processes that generate the event sequences are not known is to use low gap penalties that permit the maximum numbers of matches.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it