MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4395470054 · doi:10.18046/eui/bda.h.4

Introducción al modelo clásico de regresión para científicos de datos en R

2024· book· es· W4395470054 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueUniversidad Icesi eBooks · 2024
Typebook
Languagees
FieldComputer Science
TopicData Analysis with R
Canadian institutionsMD Precision (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

En la práctica es común encontrarse con científicos de datos que emplean el modelo de regresión múltiple para resolver preguntas de negocio. Si bien es popular ese uso, es poco frecuente observar en la práctica el chequeo de todos los supuestos que están detrás de este modelo y que hacen que éste pueda generar respuestas adecuadas. El objetivo de este libro es presentar el modelo estadístico clásico de regresión múltiple con toda la formalidad posible a los científicos de datos. Para lograr este objetivo se presenta una mezcla entre los fundamentos (estadísticos y de álgebra lineal) teóricos del modelo y cómo llevarlo a la práctica empleando R.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.021
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.047
Threshold uncertainty score0.157

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.021
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.004
Bibliometrics0.0030.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0060.007
Open science0.0040.003
Research integrity0.0030.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0470.034

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.247 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUniversidad Icesi eBooksSame topicData Analysis with RFrench-language works237,207