Design selection for strong orthogonal arrays
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 Strong orthogonal arrays (SOAs) were recently introduced and studied as a class of space‐filling designs for computer experiments. An important problem that has not been addressed in the literature is that of design selection for such arrays. In this article, we conduct a systematic investigation into this problem, and we focus on the most useful SOA( n , m ,4,2 + )s and SOA( n , m ,4,2)s. This article first addresses the problem of design selection for SOAs of strength 2+ by examining their three‐dimensional projections. Both theoretical and computational results are presented. When SOAs of strength 2+ do not exist, we formulate a general framework for the selection of SOAs of strength 2 by looking at their two‐dimensional projections. The approach is fruitful, as it is applicable when SOAs of strength 2+ do not exist and it gives rise to them when they do. The Canadian Journal of Statistics 47: 302–314; 2019 © 2019 Statistical Society of Canada
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 | 0.003 | 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) | 0.001 | 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