MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3197943580 · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2002.11259

Dimensional Analysis in Statistical Modelling

2020· preprint· en· W3197943580 on OpenAlexaff
Tae Yoon Lee, James V. Zidek, Nancy Heckman

Bibliographic record

VenuearXiv (Cornell University) · 2020
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicGaussian Processes and Bayesian Inference
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLogarithmStatistical modelComputer scienceScale (ratio)Statistical theoryFrequentist probabilityNatural (archaeology)Statistical physicsBayesian probabilityMathematicsArtificial intelligenceStatisticsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Building on recent work in statistical science, the paper presents a theory for modelling natural phenomena that unifies physical and statistical paradigms based on the underlying principle that a model must be nondimensionalizable. After all, such phenomena cannot depend on how the experimenter chooses to assess them. Yet the model itself must be comprised of quantities that can be determined theoretically or empirically. Hence, the underlying principle requires that the model represents these natural processes correctly no matter what scales and units of measurement are selected. This goal was realized for physical modelling through the celebrated theories of Buckingham and Bridgman and for statistical modellers through the invariance principle of Hunt and Stein. Building on recent research in statistical science, the paper shows how the latter can embrace and extend the former. The invariance principle is extended to encompass the Bayesian paradigm, thereby enabling an assessment of model uncertainty. The paper covers topics not ordinarily seen in statistical science regarding dimensions, scales, and units of quantities in statistical modelling. It shows the special difficulties that can arise when models involve transcendental functions, such as the logarithm which is used e.g. in likelihood analysis and is a singularity in the family of Box-Cox family of transformations. Further, it demonstrates the importance of the scale of measurement, in particular how differently modellers must handle ratio- and interval-scales

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.031
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.072

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.031
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0050.006
Science and technology studies0.0020.015
Scholarly communication0.0070.008
Open science0.0020.005
Research integrity0.0030.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.083
GPT teacher head0.195
Teacher spread0.112 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuearXiv (Cornell University)Same topicGaussian Processes and Bayesian InferenceFrench-language works237,207