MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1589379716 · doi:10.1109/icmla.2004.1383491

Multi-dimensional sequential web mining by utilizing fuzzy interferencing

2005· article· en· W1589379716 on OpenAlexaffabout
Tansel Özyer, R. Alhajj, Ken Barker

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicData Mining Algorithms and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceInferenceData miningIntuitionWeb miningFuzzy logicWeb applicationDomain (mathematical analysis)Machine learningArtificial intelligenceWeb serviceWorld Wide WebMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

There are several applications of sequential web mining, which is used to find the frequent subsequences in a web log in the World Wide Web (the web). We implemented a tool to analyze the sequential behavior of web log access patterns in multiple-dimensions. Sequences of frequent access patterns may change temporally and spatially. Based on the specified criteria like year, month, day, hours and location, the end-user is able to tune the minimum support threshold parameter intuitively using the fuzzy inference mechanism. Domain experts are can access several criteria, including minimum support threshold and number of accesses according to the user intuition, which is later, transformed into fuzzy inference parameters. We propose two different types of rule bases by considering the (support-minimum support, minimum support) and (support, minimum support), i.e., interval and case-based. To test our proposal, we used the web log dataset of the Department of Computer at the University of Calgary to analyze sequential access patterns of students during February and March carried out in the campus by taking the midterm dates into account. The results reported in this paper are promising; they demonstrate the applicability and effectiveness of the proposed approach.

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 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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.963
Threshold uncertainty score0.439

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 communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.247 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations1
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicData Mining Algorithms and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207