MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Fun with the R Grid Package

2010· article· en· W2144301732 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 Statistics Education · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicData Analysis with R
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPopularityComputer scienceGraphicsGridPlot (graphics)VisualizationR packageBase (topology)Computer graphics (images)Core (optical fiber)Data scienceHuman–computer interactionComputational scienceData miningPsychologyMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The increasing popularity of R is leading to an increase in its use in undergraduate courses at universities (R Development Core Team 2008). One of the strengths of R is the flexible graphics provided in its base package. However, students often run up against its limitations, or they find the amount of effort to create an interesting plot may be excessive. The grid package (Murrell 2005) has a wealth of graphical tools which are more accessible to such R users than many people may realize. The purpose of this paper is to highlight the main features of this package and to provide some examples to illustrate how students can have fun with this different form of plotting and to see that it can be used directly in the visualization of 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.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.513
Threshold uncertainty score0.193

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.242 · 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