Biplots for compositional data derived from generalized joint diagonalization methods
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Biplots constructed from principal components of a compositional data set are an established means to explore its features. Principal Component Analysis (PCA) is also used to transform a set of spatial variables into spatially decorrelated factors. However, because no spatial structures are accounted for in the transformation the application of PCA is limited. In geostatistics and blind source separation a variety of different matrix diagonalization methods have been developed with the aim to provide spatially or temporally decorrelated factors. Just as PCA, many of these transformations are linear and so lend themselves to the construction of biplots. In this contribution we consider such biplots for a number of methods (MAF, UWEDGE and RJD transformations) and discuss how and if they can contribute to our understanding of relationships between the components of regionalized compositions. A comparison of the biplots with the PCA biplot commonly used in compositional data analysis for the case of data from the Northern Irish geochemical survey shows that the biplots from MAF and UWEDGE are comparable as are those from PCA and RJD. The biplots emphasize different aspects of the regionalized composition: for MAF and UWEDGE the focus is the spatial continuity, while for PCA and RJD it is variance explained. The results indicate that PCA and MAF combined provide adequate and complementary means for exploratory statistical analysis.
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 | 0.010 | 0.047 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 0.005 |
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".