Bibliographic record
Abstract
Relational databases, with vast amounts of data¨Cfrom financial transactions, marketing surveys, medical records, to health informatics observations¨C and complex schemas, are ubiquitous in our society. Multirelational classification algorithms have been proposed to learn from such relational repositories, where multiple interconnected tables (relations) are involved. These methods search for relevant features both from a target relation (in which each tuple is associated with a class label) and relations related to the target, in order to better classify target relation tuples. However, in many practical database applications, such as credit card fraud detection and disease diagnosis, the target tuples are highly imbalanced. That is, the number of examples of one class (majority class) in the target relation is much higher than the others (minority classes). Many existing methods thus tend to produce poor predictive performance over the underrepresented class in the data. This paper presents a strategy to deal with such imbalanced multirelational data. The method learns from multiple views (feature sets) of relational data in order to construct view learners with different awareness of the imbalanced problem. These different observations possessed by multiple view learners are then combined, in order to yield a model which has better knowledge on both the majority and minority classes in a relational database. Experiments performed on six benchmarking data sets show that the proposed method achieves promising results when compared with other popular relational data mining algorithms, in terms of the ROC curve and AUC value obtained. In particular, an important result indicates that the method is superior when the class imbalanced is very high.
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 | 0.005 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".