Bibliographic record
Abstract
Generalized least squares (GLS) methods provide a relatively fast means of constructing a confidence set of topologies. Because they utilize information about the covariances between distances, it is reasonable to expect additional efficiency in estimation and confidence set construction relative to other least squares (LS) methods. Difficulties have been found to arise in a number of practical settings due to estimates of covariance matrices being ill conditioned or even noninvertible. We present here new ways of estimating the covariance matrices for distances that are much more likely to be positive definite, as the actual covariance matrices are. A thorough investigation of performance is also conducted. An alternative to GLS that has been proposed for constructing confidence sets of topologies is weighted least squares (WLS). As currently implemented, this approach is equivalent to the use of GLS but with covariances set to zero rather than being estimated. In effect, this approach assumes normality of the estimated distances and zero covariances. As the results here illustrate, this assumption leads to poor performance. A 95% confidence set is almost certain to contain the true topology but will contain many more topologies than are needed. On the other hand, the results here also indicate that, among LS methods, WLS performs quite well at estimating the correct topology. It turns out to be possible to improve the performance of WLS for confidence set construction through a relatively inexpensive normal parametric bootstrap that utilizes the same variances and covariances of GLS. The resulting procedure is shown to perform at least as well as GLS and thus provides a reasonable alternative in cases where covariance matrices are ill conditioned.
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 | 0.008 | 0.057 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.004 |
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.
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".