MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1514516794

Mining Frequent Itemsets Using Support Constraints

2000· article· en· W1514516794 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.

Bibliographic record

VenueNational University of Singapore · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicData Mining Algorithms and Applications
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceData mining
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Interesting patterns often occur at varied levels of support. The classic association mining based on a uniform minimum support, such as Apriori, either misses interesting patterns of low support or suffers from the bottleneck of itemset generation. A better solution is to exploit support constraints, which specify what minimum support is required for what itemsets, so that only necessary itemsets are generated. In this paper, we present a framework of frequent itemset mining in the presence of support constraints. Our approach is to "push" support constraints into the Apriori itemset generation so that the "best" minimum support is used for each itemset at run time to preserve the essence of Apriori. 1 Introduction The association rules mining, first studied in [AIS93, AS94] for market-basket analysis, is to find all association rules above some user-specified minimum support and minimum confidence. The bottleneck of this problem is finding frequent itemsets (and supp...

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.830
Threshold uncertainty score0.592

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.034
GPT teacher head0.249
Teacher spread0.215 · 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