MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Multivariate Statistical Analyses for Neuroimaging Data

2012· review· en· W2151669887 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

VenueAnnual Review of Psychology · 2012
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicFunctional Brain Connectivity Studies
Canadian institutionsBaycrest Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMultivariate statisticsNeuroimagingMultivariate analysisStatistical inferenceFocus (optics)InferenceData sciencePsychologyTaxonomy (biology)Computer scienceArtificial intelligenceMachine learningCognitive scienceNeuroscienceStatisticsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As the focus of neuroscience shifts from studying individual brain regions to entire networks of regions, methods for statistical inference have also become geared toward network analysis. The purpose of the present review is to survey the multivariate statistical techniques that have been used to study neural interactions. We have selected the most common techniques and developed a taxonomy that instructively reflects their assumptions and practical use. For each family of analyses, we describe their application and the types of experimental questions they can address, as well as how they relate to other analyses both conceptually and mathematically. We intend to show that despite their diversity, all of these techniques offer complementary information about the functional architecture of the brain.

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)0.037
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.896
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.037
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.529
GPT teacher head0.580
Teacher spread0.052 · 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