MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2996225418 · doi:10.3390/e22040417

Representational Rényi Heterogeneity

2020· preprint· en· W2996225418 on OpenAlexafffund
Abraham Nunes, Martin Alda, Timothy Bardouille, Thomas Trappenberg

Bibliographic record

VenueEntropy · 2020
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicComplex Systems and Time Series Analysis
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchKillam TrustsNova Scotia Health Research FoundationGenome CanadaDalhousie Medical Research Foundation
KeywordsPairwise comparisonCategorical variableObservableA priori and a posterioriComputer scienceSet (abstract data type)WeightingMathematicsTheoretical computer scienceData miningArtificial intelligenceStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A discrete system's heterogeneity is measured by the Rényi heterogeneity family of indices (also known as Hill numbers or Hannah-Kay indices), whose units are the numbers equivalent. Unfortunately, numbers equivalent heterogeneity measures for non-categorical data require a priori (A) categorical partitioning and (B) pairwise distance measurement on the observable data space, thereby precluding application to problems with ill-defined categories or where semantically relevant features must be learned as abstractions from some data. We thus introduce representational Rényi heterogeneity (RRH), which transforms an observable domain onto a latent space upon which the Rényi heterogeneity is both tractable and semantically relevant. This method requires neither a priori binning nor definition of a distance function on the observable space. We show that RRH can generalize existing biodiversity and economic equality indices. Compared with existing indices on a beta-mixture distribution, we show that RRH responds more appropriately to changes in mixture component separation and weighting. Finally, we demonstrate the measurement of RRH in a set of natural images, with respect to abstract representations learned by a deep neural network. The RRH approach will further enable heterogeneity measurement in disciplines whose data do not easily conform to the assumptions of existing indices.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.020
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.020
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.005
Scholarly communication0.0040.009
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.079
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.183 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEntropySame topicComplex Systems and Time Series AnalysisFrench-language works237,207