MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2482430091 · doi:10.1075/cilt.308.22dup

Visualization, validation and seriation

2009· book-chapter· en· W2482430091 on OpenAlexaff
Fernande Dupuis, Ludovic Lebart

Bibliographic record

VenueAmsterdam studies in the theory and history of linguistic science. Series 4, Current issues in linguistic theory · 2009
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicSensory Analysis and Statistical Methods
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSeriation (archaeology)Computer scienceVisualizationContext (archaeology)Natural language processingTable (database)RowSpellingSimple (philosophy)Correspondence analysisArtificial intelligenceLinguisticsData miningProgramming languageHistoryMachine learningArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Principal axes methods (such as correspondence analysis [CA]) provide useful visualizations of high-dimensional data sets. In the context of historical textual data, these techniques produce planar maps highlighting the associations between graphemes and texts (paragraphs, chapters, full texts, authors). First, we recall that a simple technique of seriation (re-ordering the rows and columns of a table) is readily derived from the first CA axis. Second, we stress the important role played by bootstrap techniques to allow for valid statistical inferences in a context in which a classical analytical approach is both unrealistic and analytically complex. A series of medieval French texts (12th–13th centuries), rich in spelling variants, exemplify the proposed approaches. A free software program is available.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.019
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.064
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.031
Threshold uncertainty score0.103

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0190.064
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0080.007
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0100.006
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0310.010

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 head0.069
GPT teacher head0.359
Teacher spread0.290 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmsterdam studies in the theory and history of linguistic science. Series 4, Current issues in linguistic theorySame topicSensory Analysis and Statistical MethodsFrench-language works237,207