MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2562584879 · doi:10.1080/03610918.2015.1004268

Evaluating the performance of sparse principal component analysis methods in high-dimensional data scenarios

2016· article· en· W2562584879 on OpenAlexaff
Ashley Bonner, Joseph Beyene

Bibliographic record

VenueCommunications in Statistics - Simulation and Computation · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGene expression and cancer classification
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPrincipal component analysisSparse PCADimensionality reductionComputer scienceData miningDimension (graph theory)Sparse matrixVariety (cybernetics)Covariance matrixRobust principal component analysisVariance (accounting)Pattern recognition (psychology)CovarianceClustering high-dimensional dataComponent (thermodynamics)Artificial intelligenceMachine learningAlgorithmMathematicsStatisticsCluster analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

High-dimensional datasets have exploded into many fields of research, challenging our interpretation of the classic dimension reduction technique, Principal Component Analysis (PCA). Recently proposed Sparse PCA methods offer useful insight into understanding complex data structures. This article compares three Sparse PCA methods through extensive simulations, with the aim of providing guidelines as to which method to choose under a variety of data structures, as dictated by the variance-covariance matrix. A real gene expression dataset is used to illustrate an application of Sparse PCA in practice and show how to link simulation results with real-world problems.

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 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)0.001
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.276
Threshold uncertainty score0.248

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.262
GPT teacher head0.515
Teacher spread0.254 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations1
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCommunications in Statistics - Simulation and ComputationSame topicGene expression and cancer classificationFrench-language works237,207