Partial Least Squares Methods: Partial Least Squares Correlation and Partial Least Square Regression
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Partial least square (PLS) methods (also sometimes called projection to latent structures) relate the information present in two data tables that collect measurements on the same set of observations. PLS methods proceed by deriving latent variables which are (optimal) linear combinations of the variables of a data table. When the goal is to find the shared information between two tables, the approach is equivalent to a correlation problem and the technique is then called partial least square correlation (PLSC) (also sometimes called PLS-SVD). In this case there are two sets of latent variables (one set per table), and these latent variables are required to have maximal covariance. When the goal is to predict one data table the other one, the technique is then called partial least square regression. In this case there is one set of latent variables (derived from the predictor table) and these latent variables are required to give the best possible prediction. In this paper we present and illustrate PLSC and PLSR and show how these descriptive multivariate analysis techniques can be extended to deal with inferential questions by using cross-validation techniques such as the bootstrap and permutation tests.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it