Finding the needle in a high-dimensional haystack: Canonical correlation analysis for neuroscientists
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The 21st century marks the emergence of "big data" with a rapid increase in the availability of datasets with multiple measurements. In neuroscience, brain-imaging datasets are more commonly accompanied by dozens or hundreds of phenotypic subject descriptors on the behavioral, neural, and genomic level. The complexity of such "big data" repositories offer new opportunities and pose new challenges for systems neuroscience. Canonical correlation analysis (CCA) is a prototypical family of methods that is useful in identifying the links between variable sets from different modalities. Importantly, CCA is well suited to describing relationships across multiple sets of data, such as in recently available big biomedical datasets. Our primer discusses the rationale, promises, and pitfalls of CCA.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.017 | 0.054 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".