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

Visualization, validation and seriation

2009· book-chapter· en· W2482430091 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.

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.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.814
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.004
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.069
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