MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Optimal Scaling

2014· other· en· W4251360357 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
FieldMathematics
TopicTensor decomposition and applications
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsScalingTransformation (genetics)Variety (cybernetics)Column (typography)Scale (ratio)Ordinal dataMatrix (chemical analysis)Key (lock)Computer scienceData MatrixInterval (graph theory)Multidimensional scalingAlgorithmMathematicsStatisticsArtificial intelligenceCombinatoricsConnection (principal bundle)Geometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract A data matrix typically represents some kind of relationship between row and column entities. The relationship represented by the data may be described by a model presumed to have generated the data. Observed data, on the other hand, may be measured on one of a variety of scale levels: nominal, ordinal, interval, or ratio. In such cases, we may attempt to do two things simultaneously: (a) we transform the data by a transformation appropriate for the scale level, and (b) we fit a model to the transformed data to account for the data. This process of simultaneous data transformations and data representations is called optimal scaling. In this article, we briefly discuss some of the key features of optimal scaling.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient 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 score0.160
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.069
GPT teacher head0.368
Teacher spread0.299 · 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