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 Several sophisticated machine learning tools (e.g., ensembles or deep networks) have shown outstanding performance in different regression forecasting tasks. In many real world application domains the numeric predictions of the models drive important and costly decisions. Nevertheless, decision makers frequently require more than a black box model to be able to “trust” the predictions up to the point that they base their decisions on them. In this context, understanding these black boxes has become one of the hot topics in Machine Learning research. This paper proposes a series of visualization tools that explain the relationship between the expected predictive performance of black box regression models and the values of the input variables of any given test case. This type of information thus allows end‐users to correctly assess the risks associated with the use of a model, by showing how concrete values of the predictors may affect the performance of the model. Our illustrations with different real world data sets and learning algorithms provide insights on the type of usage and information these tools bring to both the data analyst and the end‐user. Furthermore, a thorough evaluation of the proposed tools is performed to showcase the reliability of this approach.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 | 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