Bibliographic record
Abstract
Massive data bring the big challenges of memory and computation for analysis. These challenges can be tackled by taking subsamples from the full data as a surrogate. For functional data, it is common to collect multiple measurements over their domains, which require even more memory and computation time when the sample size is large. The computation would be much more intensive when statistical inference is required through bootstrap samples. To the best of our knowledge, this article is the first attempt to study the subsampling method for the functional linear model. We propose an optimal subsampling method based on the functional L-optimality criterion. When the response is a discrete or categorical variable, we further extend our proposed functional L-optimality subsampling (FLoS) method to the functional generalized linear model. We establish the asymptotic properties of the estimators by the FLoS method. The finite sample performance of our proposed FLoS method is investigated by extensive simulation studies. The FLoS method is further demonstrated by analyzing two large-scale datasets: the global climate data and the kidney transplant data. The analysis results on these data show that the FLoS method is much better than the uniform subsampling approach and can well approximate the results based on the full data while dramatically reducing the computation time and memory.
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 | 0.015 | 0.043 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".