MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1479984205 · doi:10.1109/dcc.1994.305931

Highly efficient universal coding with classifying to subdictionaries for text compression

2002· article· en· W1479984205 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Yasuhiko Nakano, H. Yahagi, Yoshiyuki Okada, S. Yoshida

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAlgorithms and Data Compression
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceParsingData compressionCompression ratioHash functionString (physics)Compression (physics)AlgorithmSpeech recognitionArtificial intelligencePattern recognition (psychology)Natural language processingData miningMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Describes a practical, locally adaptive data compression algorithm of the LZ78 class. According to the Lempel-Ziv incremental parsing rule, the boundary of a string is not related to the statistical history modeled by finite-state sources. The authors have already reported an algorithm classifying to subdictionaries (CSD), which uses multiple subdictionaries and conditions the current string by using the previous one to obtain a higher compression ratio for image compression. They present a practical implementation of this method for any kind of data, and show that CSD was more efficient than LZC when the UNIX facility for compression. The compression performance of CSD was about 10% better than the LZC with the practical dictionary size, an 8K-entry dictionary when the test data were used form Calgary Compression Corpus. Using hashing, the processing speed of the CSD became as fast as the LZC, though the CSD algorithm was more complicated than the LZC.>

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.003

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.230
Teacher spread0.203 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations1
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAlgorithms and Data CompressionFrench-language works237,207