Evaluation of Prediction-Oriented Model Selection Metrics for Extended Redundancy Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Extended redundancy analysis (ERA) is a statistical method that relates multiple sets of predictors to response variables. In ERA, the conventional approach of model evaluation tends to overestimate the performance of a model since the performance is assessed using the same sample used for model development. To avoid the overly optimistic assessment, we introduce a new model evaluation approach for ERA, which utilizes computer-intensive resampling methods to assess how well a model performs on unseen data. Specifically, we suggest several new model evaluation metrics for ERA that compute a model's performance on out-of-sample data, i.e., data not used for model development. Although considerable work has been done in machine learning and statistics to examine the utility of cross-validation and bootstrap variants for assessing such out-of-sample predictive performance, to date, no research has been carried out in the context of ERA. We use simulated and real data examples to compare the proposed model evaluation approach with the conventional one. Results show the conventional approach always favor more complex ERA models, thereby failing to prevent the problem of overfitting in model selection. Conversely, the proposed approach can select the true ERA model among many mis-specified (i.e., underfitted and overfitted) models.
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 | 0.044 | 0.096 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".