MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1498058970

Distributed data mining: why do more than aggregating models

2007· article· en· W1498058970 on OpenAlexaff
Mohamed Aoun-Allah, Guy W. Mineau

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicData Mining Algorithms and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDisjoint setsComputer scienceData miningCover (algebra)Constraint (computer-aided design)Association rule learningData modelingMathematicsDatabaseEngineering
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper we deal with the problem of mining large distributed databases. We show that the aggregation of models, i.e., sets of disjoint classification rules, each built over a subdatabase is quite enough to get an aggregated model that is both predictive and descriptive, that presents excellent prediction capability and that is conceptually much simpler than the comparable techniques. These results are made possible by lifting the disjoint cover constraint on the aggregated model and by the use of a confidence coefficient associated with each rule in a weighted majority vote. 1

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)0.023
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.062
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.123

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0230.062
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0070.035
Open science0.0050.007
Research integrity0.0040.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.069
GPT teacher head0.311
Teacher spread0.242 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations6
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicData Mining Algorithms and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207