MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Imputation Analysis of Central Tendencies for Classification

2021· article· en· W3161168862 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

Venue2021 IEEE International IOT, Electronics and Mechatronics Conference (IEMTRONICS) · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicAdvanced Statistical Methods and Models
Canadian institutionsLambton College
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMissing dataImputation (statistics)OutlierComputer scienceRecallSkewnessArtificial intelligencePrecision and recallData miningMachine learningStatisticsMathematicsPsychologyCognitive psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In real-world datasets missing values are so common. Most Machine Learning algorithms won't work with missing values, and so they should be handled before training the model. It is a common practice to impute the missing values with central tendencies (Mean, Median, Mode), but choosing a particular one among them is not an easy choice to make. This paper analyzes the impact of using each central tendency for different distributions of data. Skewness and the presence of outliers are considered for selecting the data for analysis. Certain presumptions have been made before the examination, and performance metrics such as accuracy, AUC-ROC, precision, recall, and F1 score are analyzed to prove/disprove the assumptions.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.777
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.123
GPT teacher head0.420
Teacher spread0.297 · 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