Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Sketching algorithms use random projections to generate a smaller sketched data set, often for the purposes of modelling. Complete and partial sketch regression estimates can be constructed using information from only the sketched data set or a combination of the full and sketched data sets. Previous work has obtained the distribution of these estimators under repeated sketching, along with the first two moments for both estimators. Using an alternative approach, we derive the distribution of the complete sketch estimator and additionally consider the error term under both repeated sketching and repeated sampling. Importantly, we obtain pivotal quantities which are based solely on the sketched data set—specifically not requiring information from the full data model fit. These pivotal quantities can be used for inference on the full data set regression estimates or the model parameters. For partial sketching, we derive pivotal quantities for a marginal test and an approximate distribution for the partial sketch under repeated sketching or repeated sampling—again avoiding reliance on a full data model fit. We extend these results to include the Hadamard and Clarkson–Woodruff sketches then compare them in a simulation study.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".