MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2136524907 · doi:10.1002/wics.1288

Least angle regression for model selection

2014· review· en· W2136524907 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

VenueWiley Interdisciplinary Reviews Computational Statistics · 2014
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistical Methods and Inference
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLasso (programming language)Model selectionRegression diagnosticRegression analysisStatistical modelComputer scienceSelection (genetic algorithm)Proper linear modelRegressionExploratory data analysisLinear regressionStatisticsGraphical modelArtificial intelligenceMachine learningMathematicsPolynomial regression

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Model selection using least angle regression ( LARS ) is an interesting approach proposed by Efron B, Hastie T, Johnstone L, Tibshirani R. Least angle regression. The Annals of statistics 2004, 320:407–499. In this paper we first review the LARS algorithm and its relationships with other popular methods such as stagewise regression and the lasso. Then we conduct a survey of recent developments and extensions of LARS . WIREs Comput Stat 2014, 6:116–123. doi: 10.1002/wics.1288 This article is categorized under: Statistical Learning and Exploratory Methods of the Data Sciences > Modeling Methods Statistical Models > Model Selection Statistical and Graphical Methods of Data Analysis > Modeling Methods and Algorithms Statistical Models > Linear Models

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.699
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.242
GPT teacher head0.490
Teacher spread0.247 · 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