MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2605967833 · doi:10.5539/ijsp.v6n3p51

Geometric Views of Partial Correlation Coefficient in Regression Analysis

2017· article· en· W2605967833 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Bilin Zeng, Kang Chen, Cong Wang

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Statistics and Probability · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicSpectroscopy and Chemometric Analyses
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPartial correlationRegression analysisRegressionSimple (philosophy)MathematicsCorrelation coefficientSimple linear regressionComprehensionStatisticsReading (process)Simple correlationCorrelationComputer scienceEpistemologyLinguisticsGeometryPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

By describing the geometric analogues of the concepts from various perspectives, this work aims to provide a richer and intuitive comprehension of the concept of partial correlation coefficient in the regression analysis, especially for beginning students. Based on a simple and strictly correct geometric framework, this article geometrically illustrates the concept of partial correlation coefficient in regression analysis from the views of the Frisch-Waugh-Lovell Theorem, partial F test statistics, and the comparisons with other levels of correlation coefficients. In our opinion, the geometric approach sheds lights on the regression analysis as it provides a richer and more concrete understanding for readers, especially for beginners. This paper can also be served as a supplementary reading material for serious beginners.

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)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.035
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.063

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.035
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0050.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.009
Scholarly communication0.0050.008
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0010.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.002

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.348
Teacher spread0.315 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations2
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Statistics and ProbabilitySame topicSpectroscopy and Chemometric AnalysesFrench-language works237,207