MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2153618310 · doi:10.1016/j.jmva.2014.06.003

Tests for covariance matrices in high dimension with less sample size

2014· article· en· W2153618310 on OpenAlexafffund
Muni S. Srivastava, Hirokazu Yanagihara, Tatsuya Kubokawa

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Multivariate Analysis · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicRandom Matrices and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersJapan Society for the Promotion of ScienceNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsMathematicsLaw of total covarianceDimension (graph theory)Estimation of covariance matricesCovariance matrixCovarianceIdentity matrixSample size determinationScatter matrixSphericityStatisticsEstimatorRational quadratic covariance functionMatrix (chemical analysis)Matérn covariance functionCombinatoricsApplied mathematicsCovariance intersectionEigenvalues and eigenvectors

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex
No abstract in any covered source. Its absence is recorded, not treated as a negative.

No abstract. This is not a gap in this database; OpenAlex has none either. 23.3% of the frame is in this state, and the screen finds HALF as much metaresearch here, so the absence is a measured bias rather than a missing field.

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)0.040
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.298
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 score0.040
Threshold uncertainty score0.213

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0400.298
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.003
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.004
Scholarly communication0.0040.010
Open science0.0040.004
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.001

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.326
Teacher spread0.295 · 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

Citations79
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Multivariate AnalysisSame topicRandom Matrices and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207