Detection of outliers with respect to a MUSIC geotechnical database
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study proposes a novel method that addresses a nontraditional class of outlier detection problems. The purpose of most outlier detection methods in the literature is to detect outliers within a dataset. A record can be considered an outlier if it is distinct from the regular records in the dataset. However, the purpose of the novel outlier detection method proposed in this study is to detect outlier data groups (a data group may denote a site or a project) with respect to a soil/rock property "MUSIC" database. A data group is an outlier group if its characteristics (mean, variance, correlation, or higher order dependency) are distinct from the regular data groups in the database. This study frames the outlier detection problem into a formal hypothesis testing problems with the null hypothesis that “the target data group is identically distributed as the regular groups in the database.” With the hierarchical Bayesian model previously developed by the first two authors, the p-value for this hypothesis testing problem can be estimated rigorously. Numerical and real examples show that the p-value can effectively detect outlier data groups as well as outlier records with respect to a database.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it