Performance comparison of linear and non-linear feature selection methods for the analysis of large survey datasets
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Large survey databases for aging-related analysis are often examined to discover key factors that affect a dependent variable of interest. Typically, this analysis is performed with methods assuming linear dependencies between variables. Such assumptions however do not hold in many cases, wherein data are linked by way of non-linear dependencies. This in turn requires applications of analytic methods, which are more accurate in identifying potentially non-linear dependencies. Here, we objectively compared the feature selection performance of several frequently-used linear selection methods and three non-linear selection methods in the context of large survey data. These methods were assessed using both synthetic and real-world datasets, wherein relationships between the features and dependent variables were known in advance. In contrast to linear methods, we found that the non-linear methods offered better overall feature selection performance than linear methods in all usage conditions. Moreover, the performance of the non-linear methods was more stable, being unaffected by the inclusion or exclusion of variables from the datasets. These properties make non-linear feature selection methods a potentially preferable tool for both hypothesis-driven and exploratory analyses for aging-related datasets.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.016 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".