Generalizing hierarchical and variation partitioning in multiple regression and canonical analyses using the rdacca.hp R package
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Canonical analysis, a generalization of multiple regression to multiple‐response variables, is widely used in ecology. Because these models often involve many parameters (one slope per response per predictor), they pose challenges to model interpretation. Among these challenges, we lack quantitative frameworks for estimating the overall importance of single predictors in multi‐response regression models. Here we demonstrate that commonality analysis and hierarchical partitioning, widely used for both estimating predictor importance and improving the interpretation of single‐response regression models, are related and complementary frameworks that can be expanded for the analysis of multiple‐response models. In this application, we (a) demonstrate the mathematical links between commonality analysis, variation and hierarchical partitioning; (b) generalize these frameworks to allow the analysis of any number of predictor variables or groups of predictor variables as in the case of variation partitioning; and (c) introduce and demonstrate the implementation of these generalized frameworks in the R package rdacca.hp .
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 | 0.023 | 0.081 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 0.010 |
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".