Weighted lens depth: Some applications to supervised classification
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 Starting with Tukey's pioneering work in the 1970s, the notion of depth in statistics has been widely extended, especially in the last decade. Such extensions include those to high‐dimensional data, functional data, and manifold‐valued data. In particular, in the learning paradigm, the depth‐depth method has become a useful technique. In this article, we extend the lens depth to the case of data in metric spaces and study its main properties. We also introduce, for Riemannian manifolds, the weighted lens depth. The weighted lens depth is nothing more than a lens depth for a weighted version of the Riemannian distance. To build it, we replace the geodesic distance on the manifold with the Fermat distance, which has the important property of taking into account the density of the data together with the geodesic distance. Next, we illustrate our results with some simulations and also in some interesting real datasets, including pattern recognition in phylogenetic trees, using the depth‐depth 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 | 0.001 |
| 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