MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4250766106 · doi:10.1198/jcgs.2011.09224

Functional Boxplots

2011· article· en· W4250766106 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Ying Sun, Marc G. Genton

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Computational and Graphical Statistics · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicAdvanced Statistical Methods and Models
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersKing Abdullah University of Science and TechnologyUniversity of WindsorNational Science Foundation
KeywordsFunctional data analysisOutlierComputer scienceGeneralizationExploratory data analysisAnomaly detectionEnvelope (radar)Artificial intelligenceStatisticsData miningMathematicsMachine learning

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article proposes an informative exploratory tool, the functional boxplot, for visualizing functional data, as well as its generalization, the enhanced functional boxplot. Based on the center outward ordering induced by band depth for functional data, the descriptive statistics of a functional boxplot are: the envelope of the 50% central region, the median curve, and the maximum non-outlying envelope. In addition, outliers can be detected in a functional boxplot by the 1.5 times the 50% central region empirical rule, analogous to the rule for classical boxplots. The construction of a functional boxplot is illustrated on a series of sea surface temperatures related to the El Niño phenomenon and its outlier detection performance is explored by simulations. As applications, the functional boxplot and enhanced functional boxplot are demonstrated on children growth data and spatio-temporal U.S. precipitation data for nine climatic regions, respectively. This article has supplementary material online.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.028
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.056
Threshold uncertainty score0.186

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.028
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0060.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.004
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0560.011

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 head0.151
GPT teacher head0.375
Teacher spread0.224 · 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

Citations417
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Computational and Graphical StatisticsSame topicAdvanced Statistical Methods and ModelsFrench-language works237,207