MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2240015078

Akaike Information Criterion for Selecting Components of the Mean Vector in High Dimensional Data with Fewer Observations

2007· article· en· W2240015078 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

VenueCIRJE F-Series · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistical Methods and Inference
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAkaike information criterionGeneralityBayesian information criterionMathematicsModel selectionStatisticsMultivariate statisticsContext (archaeology)Selection (genetic algorithm)Information CriteriaSample (material)Computer scienceArtificial intelligenceGeography
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Akaike information criterion (AIC) has been successfully used in the liter-ature in model selection when there are a small number of parameters p and a large number of observations N. The cases when p is large and close to N or when p> N have not been considered in the literature. In fact, when p is large and close to N, the available AIC does not perform well at all. We consider these cases in the context of finding the number of components of the mean vector that may be different from zero in one-sample multivariate analysis. In fact, we consider this problem in more generality by considering it as a growth curve model introduced in Rao (1959) and Potthoff and Roy (1964). Using simulation, it has been shown that the proposed AIC procedures perform well. Key words and phrases: Akaike information criterion, high correlation, high dimen-sional model, ridge estimator, selection of means.

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)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.825
Threshold uncertainty score0.233

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.163
GPT teacher head0.358
Teacher spread0.195 · 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