MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1599956645 · doi:10.21427/d7q89w

Off to a Good Start: Using Clustering to Select the Initial Training Set in Active Learning

2010· article· en· W1599956645 on OpenAlex

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.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueArrow - TU Dublin (Technological University Dublin) · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicMachine Learning and Algorithms
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersScience Foundation IrelandCanada Millennium Scholarship Foundation
KeywordsCluster analysisComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceSet (abstract data type)Selection (genetic algorithm)Task (project management)Machine learningProcess (computing)Nondeterministic algorithmSample (material)Data miningAlgorithmEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Active learning (AL) is used in textual classification to alleviate the cost of labelling documents for training. An important issue in AL is the selection of a representative sample of documents to label for the initial training set that seeds the process, and clustering techniques have been successfully used in this regard. However, the clustering techniques used are nondeterministic which causes inconsistent behaviour in the AL process. In this paper we first illustrate the problems associated with using non-deterministic clustering for initial training set selection in AL. We then examine the performance of three deterministic clustering techniques for this task and show that performance comparable to the non-deterministic approaches can be achieved without variations in behaviour.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.841
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0000.002
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 head0.273
Teacher spread0.235 · 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