MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410790021 · doi:10.1002/wics.70029

Orthogonal Arrays: A Review

2025· review· en· W4410790021 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

VenueWiley Interdisciplinary Reviews Computational Statistics · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicOptimal Experimental Design Methods
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaNational Science Foundation
KeywordsComputer scienceOrthogonal arrayMathematicsStatisticsTaguchi methods

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Orthogonal arrays are arguably one of the most fascinating and important statistical tools for efficient data collection. They have a simple, natural definition, desirable properties when used as fractional factorials, and a rich and beautiful mathematical theory. Their connections with combinatorics, finite fields, geometry, and error‐correcting codes are profound. Orthogonal arrays have been widely used in agriculture, engineering, manufacturing, and high‐technology industries for quality and productivity improvement experiments. In recent years, they have drawn rapidly growing interest from various fields such as computer experiments, integration, visualization, optimization, big data, machine learning/artificial intelligence through successful applications in those fields. We review the fundamental concepts and statistical properties and report recent developments. Discussions of recent applications and connections with various fields are presented. Some interesting open research directions are also presented.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.648
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0080.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.006

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 head0.240
GPT teacher head0.550
Teacher spread0.310 · 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