Hierarchical Document Clustering Using Frequent Itemsets
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A major challenge in document clustering is the extremely high dimensionality. For example, the vocabulary for a document set can easily be thousands of words. On the other hand, each document often contains a small fraction of words in the vocabulary. These features require special handlings. Another requirement is hierarchical clustering where clustered documents can be browsed according to the increasing specificity of topics. In this paper, we propose to use the notion of frequent itemsets, which comes from association rule mining, for document clustering. The intuition of our clustering criterion is that each cluster is identified by some common words, called frequent itemsets, for the documents in the cluster. Frequent itemsets are also used to produce a hierarchical topic tree for clusters. By focusing on frequent items, the dimensionality of the document set is drastically reduced. We show that this method outperforms best existing methods in terms of both clustering accuracy and scalability.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it