MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2512287401 · doi:10.1177/0008068320130104

A Unified Approach to Factorial Designs with Randomization Restrictions

2013· article· en· W2512287401 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

VenueCalcutta Statistical Association Bulletin · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicOptimal Experimental Design Methods
Canadian institutionsAcadia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFactorial experimentRandomizationFactorialMathematicsRestricted randomizationFractional factorial designIsomorphism (crystallography)Linear subspaceContrast (vision)Rank (graph theory)Plackett–Burman designMathematical optimizationComputer scienceArithmeticAlgorithmStatisticsCombinatoricsArtificial intelligencePure mathematicsClinical trial

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abtsrcat Factorial designs are commonly used to assess the impact of factors and factor combinations in industrial and agricultural experiments. Though preferred, complete randomization of trials is often infeasible, and randomization restrictions are imposed. In this paper, we discuss a finite projective geometric (PG) approach to unify the existence, construction and analysis of multistage factorial designs with randomization restrictions using randomization defining contrast subspaces (or flats of a PG). Our main focus will be on the construction of such designs, and developing a word length pattern scheme that can be used for generalizing the traditional design rank- ing criteria for factorial designs. We also present a novel isomorphism check algorithm for these designs.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.023
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.298
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.023
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.004

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 head0.092
GPT teacher head0.372
Teacher spread0.280 · 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