MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2776786319 · doi:10.1016/j.ifacol.2017.08.771

Conditions for handling confounding variables in dynamic networks

2017· article· en· W2776786319 on OpenAlexaff
Arne G. Dankers, Paul M.J. Van den Hof, Donatello Materassi, Harm H.M. Weerts

Bibliographic record

VenueIFAC-PapersOnLine · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicControl Systems and Identification
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConfoundingIdentification (biology)Computer scienceTransfer functionFocus (optics)Function (biology)Variable (mathematics)EconometricsMathematicsStatisticsEngineeringBiologyEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper we focus on consistently identifying a transfer function (module) embedded in a dynamic network. When identifying a module embedded in a dynamic network, a critical choice is which variables to include as predictor inputs. In the system identification literature sufficient conditions have been derived. One condition is that there should be no confounding variables. We show that this condition can be relaxed.

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)0.029
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.165
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.029
Threshold uncertainty score0.151

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0290.165
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.006
Scholarly communication0.0030.011
Open science0.0030.008
Research integrity0.0050.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0140.002

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.265 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations15
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIFAC-PapersOnLineSame topicControl Systems and IdentificationFrench-language works237,207