MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2153914621 · doi:10.1139/x03-022

Does cross validation provide additional information in the evaluation of regression models?

2003· article· en· W2153914621 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
A. Kozak, Robert Kozak

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicForest ecology and management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCross-validationStatisticsModel validationRegression analysisRegressionComputer scienceMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A detailed study using seven data sets, two standing tree volume estimating models, and a height–diameter model showed that fit statistics and lack of fit statistics calculated directly from a regression model can be well estimated using simulations of cross validation or double cross validation. These results suggest that cross validation by data splitting and double cross validation provide little, if any, additional information in the process of evaluating regression models.

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)0.236
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.492
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.236
Threshold uncertainty score0.942

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.2360.492
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.005
Bibliometrics0.0050.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0040.013
Open science0.0030.004
Research integrity0.0050.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.060
GPT teacher head0.344
Teacher spread0.284 · 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.

Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations278
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Forest ResearchSame topicForest ecology and managementFrench-language works237,207