MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1540546581 · doi:10.1109/icdm.2004.10021

Learning conditional independence tree for ranking

2004· article· en· W1540546581 on OpenAlexaff
Su Jiang, H. Zhang

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicRough Sets and Fuzzy Logic
Canadian institutionsUniversity of New Brunswick
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMachine learningDecision treeRanking (information retrieval)Computer scienceNaive Bayes classifierConditional independenceArtificial intelligenceTree (set theory)Independence (probability theory)Decision tree learningIncremental decision treeData miningID3 algorithmRanking SVMLearning to rankMathematicsStatisticsSupport vector machine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Accurate ranking is desired in many real-world data mining applications. Traditional learning algorithms, however, aim only at high classification accuracy. It has been observed that both traditional decision trees and naive Bayes produce good classification accuracy but poor probability estimates. In this paper, we use a new model, conditional independence tree (CITree), which is a combination of decision tree and naive Bayes and more suitable for ranking and more learnable in practice. We propose a novel algorithm for learning CITree for ranking, and the experiments show that the CITree algorithm outperforms the state-of-the-art decision tree learning algorithm C4.4 and naive Bayes significantly in yielding accurate rankings. Our work provides an effective data mining algorithm for applications in which an accurate ranking is required.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.023
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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.029

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.023
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.003
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.249
Teacher spread0.230 · 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
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

Citations4
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicRough Sets and Fuzzy LogicFrench-language works237,207