Using normal probability plots to determine parameters for higher‐level factorial experiments with orthogonal and orthonormal bases
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT In chemical engineering applications such as optimizing plant operations and product quality, factorial experiments are often conducted to obtain empirical models for systems. While the mathematical underpinning for two‐level factorial designs is well understood, a methodology for analyzing higher‐level experiments is not readily available. Often an orthogonal or orthonormal basis is selected for a factorial design matrix. In factorial design, an orthonormal basis is defined as an orthogonal matrix where the Euclidean two‐norms of the column vectors are equal. This investigation examines, for full factorial design, the selection of parameters using normal probability plots and the effect that the design basis has on parameter determination. When using normal probability plots to determine parameter significance, the traditional orthogonal basis for higher‐level experiments may result in erroneous conclusions. A Monte‐Carlo experiment was developed to simulate 3‐level and mixed‐level factorial experiments with different types of measurement error. The basis chosen is shown to affect the shape of probability plots, and measurement errors from a given normal distribution are shown to result in a constant standard deviation for all parameter estimates only when using an orthonormal basis.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it