MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2991877662 · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0225439

Feature identification in time-indexed model output

2019· article· en· W2991877662 on OpenAlexaff
Justin Shaw, Marek Stastna

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS ONE · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicMeteorological Phenomena and Simulations
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEmpirical orthogonal functionsAlgorithmComputer scienceFocus (optics)Feature (linguistics)Range (aeronautics)InstabilityFunction (biology)AmplitudeModalPattern recognition (psychology)Artificial intelligencePhysicsMechanicsOpticsMachine learning

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We present a method for identifying features (time periods of interest) in data sets consisting of time-indexed model output. The method is used as a diagnostic to quickly focus the attention on a subset of the data before further analysis methods are applied. Mathematically, the infinity norm errors of empirical orthogonal function (EOF) reconstructions are calculated for each time output. The result is an EOF reconstruction error map which clearly identifies features as changes in the error structure over time. The ubiquity of EOF-type methods in a wide range of disciplines reduces barriers to comprehension and implementation of the method. We apply the error map method to three different Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) data sets as examples: the development of a spontaneous instability in a large amplitude internal solitary wave, an internal wave interacting with a density profile change, and the collision of two waves of different vertical mode. In all cases the EOF error map method identifies relevant features which are worthy of further study.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.210
Teacher spread0.163 · 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

Citations9
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS ONESame topicMeteorological Phenomena and SimulationsFrench-language works237,207