Bibliographic record
Abstract
In experimental science and engineering, least squares are ubiquitous in analysis and digital data processing applications. Minimizing sums of squares of some quantities can be interpreted in very different ways and confusion can arise in practice, especially concerning the optimality and reliability of the results. Interpretations of least squares in terms of norms and likelihoods need to be considered to provide guidelines for general users. Assuming minimal prerequisites, the following expository discussion is intended to elaborate on some of the mathematical characteristics of the least‐squares methodology and some closely related questions in the analysis of the results, model identification, and reliability for practical applications. Examples of simple applications are included to illustrate some of the advantages, disadvantages, and limitations of least squares in practice. Concluding remarks summarize the situation and provide some indications of practical areas of current research and development.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.014 | 0.043 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.014 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.029 | 0.031 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".