Lattice Machine Classification based on Contextual Probability
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper we review Lattice Machine, a learning paradigm that “learns” by generalising data in a consistent, conservative and parsimonious way, and has the advantage of being able to provide additional reliability information for any classification. More specifically, we review the related concepts such as hyper tuple and hyper relation, the three generalising criteria (equilabelledness, maximality, and supportedness) as well as the modelling and classifying algorithms. In an attempt to find a better method for classification in Lattice Machine, we consider the contextual probability which was originally proposed as a measure for approximate reasoning when there is insufficient data. It was later found to be a probability function that has the same classification ability as the data generating probability called primary probability. It was also found to be an alternative way of estimating the primary probability without much model assumption. Consequently, a contextual probability based Bayes classifier can be designed. In this paper we present a new classifier that utilises the Lattice Machine model and generalises the contextual probability based Bayes classifier. We interpret the model as a dense set of data points in the data space and then apply the contextual probability based Bayes classifier. A theorem is presented that allows efficient estimation of the contextual probability based on this interpretation. The proposed classifier is illustrated by examples.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".