MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2148939588 · doi:10.1198/tast.2009.0012

Where's Waldo? Visualizing Collinearity Diagnostics

2009· article· en· W2148939588 on OpenAlexaff
Michael Friendly, Ernest Kwan

Bibliographic record

VenueThe American Statistician · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicAdvanced Statistical Methods and Models
Canadian institutionsEngineers Without Borders Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCollinearityBiplotSalientComputer scienceRank (graph theory)StatisticsSoftwareSimple (philosophy)Matrix (chemical analysis)Data miningMathematicsPattern recognition (psychology)Artificial intelligenceCombinatoricsProgramming language

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Collinearity diagnostics are widely used, but the typical tabular output used in almost all software makes it hard to tell what to look for and how to understand the results. We describe a simple improvement to the standard tabular display, a graphic rendition of the salient information as a which is simultaneously a biplot of the smallest dimensions of the correlation matrix of the predictors, RXX, and the largest dimensions of R–1xx, on which the standard collinearity diagnostics are based.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.053
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.073

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.053
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0060.005
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0220.004

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 head0.097
GPT teacher head0.467
Teacher spread0.370 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations48
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe American StatisticianSame topicAdvanced Statistical Methods and ModelsFrench-language works237,207