MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

<scp>L</scp> atin Hypercube Designs

2014· other· en· W4234356797 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

VenueWiley StatsRef: Statistics Reference Online · 2014
Typeother
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicOptimal Experimental Design Methods
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLatin hypercube samplingOrthogonalityHypercubeComputer scienceStratification (seeds)Class (philosophy)Space (punctuation)Computer experimentStrengths and weaknessesUnivariateTheoretical computer scienceMathematicsParallel computingSimulationGeometryStatisticsOperating systemArtificial intelligenceMultivariate statisticsMonte Carlo method

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Latin hypercubes are a rich class of designs that are suitable for computer experiments and numerical integration. They are easy to generate and achieve maximum stratification in each of the univariate margins of the design region. This article introduces Latin hypercubes, explains how they can be used in computer experiments and numerical integration, and discusses their strengths and weaknesses. A design may not perform well in terms of other criteria such as those of space filling and orthogonality, simply because it is a Latin hypercube. The article concludes with a discussion on some of the methods for constructing Latin hypercubes that have better space‐filling or orthogonality properties.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.135
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.008

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 head0.227
GPT teacher head0.450
Teacher spread0.223 · 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