Reply to comment on “Closure in crystal size distributions (CSD), verification of CSD calculations and the significance of CSD fans”
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Geochemists have long been aware of closure in chemical analysis (e.g., Chayes 1960). The purpose of my 2002 paper was to point out that closure also occurs in crystal-size distribution analysis (CSD; Higgins 2002). In both geochemistry and CSD analysis closure can lead to meaningless correlations, but carefully designed studies can easily avoid this situation and yield significant results. In my paper, I developed some very simple equations that are applicable to all CSDs, whatever their shape (Eqs. 1, 2, and 6). This is the context for the phrase “applies to all CSDs” that is quoted by Pan. I later developed equations that can only be applied to straight CSDs that extend to all crystal sizes, zero to infinity (Eqs. 3 and 4). These cannot be applied to all CSDs. The phrase “any process that changes the slope of the CSD must also change the intercept” quoted by …
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 | 0.005 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.036 | 0.051 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.008 |
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".