Partial Least Squares Methods: Partial Least Squares Correlation and Partial Least Square Regression
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.
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 | 0.007 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.006 |
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".