MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2478496062 · doi:10.20982/tqmp.11.1.p008

Hierarchical Cluster Analysis: Comparison of Three Linkage Measures and Application to Psychological Data

2015· article· en· W2478496062 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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Quantitative Methods for Psychology · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicComplex Network Analysis Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
FundersUniversity of Ottawa
KeywordsLinkage (software)Cluster (spacecraft)Hierarchical clusteringComputer sciencePsychologyData miningStatisticsCluster analysisMathematicsArtificial intelligenceBiologyGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cluster analysis refers to a class of data reduction methods used for sorting cases, observations, or variables of a given dataset into homogeneous groups that differ from each other. The present paper focuses on hierarchical agglomerative cluster analysis, a statistical technique where groups are sequentially created by systematically merging similar clusters together, as dictated by the distance and linkage measures chosen by the researcher. Specific distance and linkage measures are reviewed, including a discussion of how these choices can influence the clustering process by comparing three common linkage measures (single linkage, complete linkage, average linkage). The tutorial guides researchers in performing a hierarchical cluster analysis using the SPSS statistical software. Through an example, we demonstrate how cluster analysis can be used to detect meaningful subgroups in a sample of bilinguals by examining various language variables.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.780
Threshold uncertainty score0.473

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.345
GPT teacher head0.580
Teacher spread0.235 · 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