Heteroscedasticity and Model Selection via Partitioning in Fisheries Data
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
Selecting a proper model for a data set is a challenging task. In this article, an attempt was made to answer and to find a suitable model for a given data set. A general linear model (GLM) was introduced along with three different methods for estimating the parameters of the model. The three estimation methods considered in this paper were ordinary least squares (OLS), generalized least squares (GLS), and feasible generalized least squares (FGLS). In the case of GLS, two different weights were selected for improving the severity of heteroscedasticity and the proper weight (s) was deployed. The third weight was selected through the application of FGLS. Analyses showed that only two of the three weights including the FGLS were effective in improving or reducing the severity of heteroscedasticity. In addition, each data set was divided into Training, Validation, and Testing producing a more reliable set of estimates for the parameters in the model. Partitioning data is a relatively new approach is statistics borrowed from the field of machine learning. Stepwise and forward selection methods along with a number of statistics including the average square error testing (ASE), Adj. R-Sq, AIC, AICC, and ASE validate along with proper hierarchies were deployed to select a more appropriate model(s) for a given data set. Furthermore, the response variable in both data files was transformed using the Box-Cox method to meet the assumption of normality. Analysis showed that the logarithmic transformation solved this issue in a satisfactory manner. Since the issues of heteroscedasticity, model selection, and partitioning of data have not been addressed in fisheries, for introduction and demonstration purposes only, the 2015 and 2016 shrimp data in the Gulf of Mexico (GOM) were selected and the above methods were applied to these data sets. At the conclusion, some variations of the GLM were identified as possible leading candidates for the above data sets.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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