Comparative analysis of principal components can be misleading
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Quantitative geneticists long ago recognized the value of studying evolution in a multivariate framework (Pearson, 1903). Due tolinkage, pleiotropy, coordinated selection and mutational covariance, the evolutionary response in any phenotypic trait can only be properly understood in the context ofother traits (Lande, 1979; Lynch and Walsh, 1998). This is of course also well-appreciated bycomparative biologists. However, unlike in quantitative genetics, most of the statistical and conceptual tools for analyzing phylogenetic comparative data (recently reviewed in Pennell and Harmon, 2013) are designed for analyzing a single trait (but see, for example Revell and Harmon, 2008; Revell and Harrison, 2008; Hohenlohe and Arnold, 2008; Revell and Collar, 2009; Schmitz and Motani, 2011; Adams, 2014b). Indeed, even classical approaches for testing for correlated evolution between two traits (e.g., Felsenstein, 1985; Grafen, 1989; Harvey and Pagel, 1991) are not actually multivariate as each trait is assumed to have evolved under a process that is independent of the state of the other (Hansen and Orzack, 2005; Hansen and Bartoszek, 2012). As a result of these limitations, researchers with multivariate datasets are often faced with a choice: analyze each trait as if they were independent or else decompose the dataset into statistically independent set of traits, such that each set can be analyzed with the univariate methods.
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 | 0.051 | 0.196 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.018 | 0.007 |
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".