MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W170258093

A Unified Framework for Utility Based Measures for Mining Itemsets

2006· article· en· W170258093 on OpenAlexaff
Hong Yao, Howard J. Hamilton, Liqiang Geng

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicData Mining Algorithms and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Regina
Fundersnot available
KeywordsData miningComputer scienceProcess (computing)Function (biology)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A pattern is of utility to a person if its use by that per- son contributes to reaching a goal. Utility based measures use the utilities of the patterns to re∞ect the user's goals. In this paper, we flrst review utility based measures for itemset mining. Then, we present a unifled framework for incorpo- rating several utility based measures into the data mining process by deflning a unifled utility function. Next, within this framework, we summary the mathematical properties of utility based measures that will allow the time and space costs of the itemset mining algorithm to be reduced.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.021
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.049
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.112

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0210.049
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.005
Bibliometrics0.0100.014
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0080.011
Open science0.0060.005
Research integrity0.0030.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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 head0.054
GPT teacher head0.301
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations103
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicData Mining Algorithms and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207