MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3097065132 · doi:10.1093/biomet/asaa089

A method of constructing maximin distance designs

2020· article· en· W3097065132 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueBiometrika · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicOptimal Experimental Design Methods
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMinimaxDistance measuresMathematical optimizationMathematicsMeasure (data warehouse)Construct (python library)Class (philosophy)Computer experimentOptimal designComputer scienceAlgorithmData miningArtificial intelligenceStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Summary An attractive type of space-filling design for computer experiments is the class of maximin distance designs. Algorithmic search is commonly used for finding such designs, but this approach becomes ineffective for large problems. Theoretical construction of maximin distance designs is challenging; some results have been obtained recently, often using highly specialized techniques. This article presents an easy-to-use method for constructing maximin distance designs. The method is versatile as it works with any distance measure. The basic idea is to construct large designs from small designs, and the method is effective because the quality of large designs is guaranteed by that of small designs, as evaluated by the maximin distance criterion.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.388
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.008
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.415
GPT teacher head0.499
Teacher spread0.084 · 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