Bibliographic record
Abstract
In field or laboratory planned experiments, it is possible to observe vague, incomplete, or imprecise data due to known or unknown reasons.Thus, the analysis should take into consideration the imprecision in data vales.In recent past, researchers have proposed various approaches such as fuzzy, intuitionistic fuzzy and neutrosophic logic and analysis, which provide better understanding, analysis and interpretations of the imprecise data.Experimental design and analysis is a systematic, rigorous approach to problem solving that applies principles and techniques at the data collection stage so as to ensure the generation of valid, defensible, and supportable conclusions.Factorial designs are widely used in experiments that involve several factors and where it is necessary to study the joint effects of the factors on a response.Several special cases of the general factorial design are important because they are widely used in research work and also because they form the basis of other designs of considerable practical value.These designs are widely used in factor screening experiments as well.The most important of these special cases is that of k factors, each at only two levels.These levels may be quantitative or they may be qualitative.A complete replicate of such a design is called a 2 k -factorial design.In this paper, we consider the first design in the 2 k -series which is one with only two factors, say A and B, each run at two levels.The levels of the factors may be arbitrarily called low and high.This design is called a 2 2 -factorial design.For the imprecise response data, we will define a neutrosophic 2 2 -factorial design (N2 2 FD), neutrosophic model and neutrosophic analysis.As an illustration, we consider an investigation into the effect of the concentration of the reactant and the amount of the catalyst on the conversion (yield) in a chemical process.The objective of the experiment is to determine if adjustments to either of these two factors would increase the yield.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.014 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 0.002 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".