MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4390053810 · doi:10.5705/ss.202023.0165

Minimum Aberration Factorial Designs Under A Mixed Parametrization

2023· article· en· W4390053810 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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueStatistica Sinica · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced optical system design
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaSimon Fraser University
KeywordsParametrization (atmospheric modeling)Fractional factorial designFactorial experimentMathematicsFactorialComputer scienceMathematical optimizationStatisticsMathematical analysisPhysicsOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The baseline parametrization for two-level factorial designs has been receiving increasing attention recently.While the orthogonal parametrization is appropriate for experiments where the two levels of each factor are symmetrical, the baseline parametrization is well suited for experiments where the two levels of each factor are asymmetrical and one level, called a baseline level, is the default level.This paper considers a general situation where some factors have a baseline level while others do not.A mixed parametrization of factorial effects is proposed and its connection with the existing parametrizations is established.Under this new parametrization, we show that orthogonal arrays continue to be optimal for estimating main effects, and then put forward two minimum aberration criteria for further design selection.Both theoretical and algorithmic constructions of minimum aberration designs are examined and useful designs are obtained.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.971
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.053
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.238 · 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