MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2926618019 · doi:10.1080/03610918.2019.1586927

DSLRIG: Leveraging predictor structure in logistic regression

2019· article· en· W2926618019 on OpenAlexafffund
Matthew Stephenson, R. Ayesha Ali, Gerarda Darlington, Flávio S. Schenkel, E. James Squires

Bibliographic record

VenueCommunications in Statistics - Simulation and Computation · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicMulti-Criteria Decision Making
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
FundersAgricultural Adaptation CouncilOntario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs
KeywordsLogistic regressionRegressionRanking (information retrieval)Computer scienceLogistic model treeRepresentation (politics)Artificial intelligenceGraphRegression analysisStatisticsSet (abstract data type)MathematicsPattern recognition (psychology)Machine learningTheoretical computer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Previous research has demonstrated that predictive performance can be improved whenever an undirected graph can be built over the set of predictors for a continuous response and the neighborhood structure is exploited. These methods are extended to a binary outcome in the new doubly sparse logistic regression incorporating graphical structure among predictors (DSLRIG) model. DSLRIG uses a decomposed representation of the regression parameters and encourages sparsity both within and among the groups that contribute to estimation. Compared to conventional regularized methods, DSLRIG offers improved predictive performance and identification of the true non-zero regression coefficients, while retaining their relative ranking.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.022
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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.038

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.022
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.412
GPT teacher head0.545
Teacher spread0.132 · 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

Citations3
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCommunications in Statistics - Simulation and ComputationSame topicMulti-Criteria Decision MakingFrench-language works237,207