A method for comparing perceptual distances and areas with multidimensional scaling
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
This paper presents a method for adding additional statistical comparisons to multidimensional scaling (MDS). The object of study in our work is perceptual distances between speech sound categories. Typically, MDS solutions do not receive inferential statistical treatment and their visualizations present average results across numerous participants. This is problematic because it ignores inter-participant variation. To account for this variance, we have devised a simple technique for adding statistical power to the traditional MDS solution so that the distances between objects and the areas occupied by groups of objects can be compared more reliably than visual inspection of an MDS plot. We provide a method for comparing distances between two objects and for comparing the area of three or more objects. This method can be paired with varying statistical analysis to suit the researcher's needs. •Adds statistical power to multidimensional scaling.•Compares distances between segments.•Compares dispersion of groups of objects in multidimensional space.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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