MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1844869736 · doi:10.1007/978-3-7908-1825-3_2

Granular Computing in Data Mining

2001· book-chapter· en· W1844869736 on OpenAlexaff
Witold Pedrycz

Bibliographic record

VenueStudies in fuzziness and soft computing · 2001
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicRough Sets and Fuzzy Logic
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsData miningCardinality (data modeling)Granular computingComputer scienceConsistency (knowledge bases)InterpretabilityFlexibility (engineering)Relevance (law)GranulationArtificial intelligenceRough setMathematicsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this study, we are concerned with the role of information granulation in data mining in databases. By their nature, data mining pursuits are very much oriented towards end-users and imply that any results need to be easily interpretable. Granulation of information promotes this interpretability and channels all pursuits of data mining (that are otherwise computationally intensive and thus highly prohibitive) towards more efficient and feasible processing. First, we discuss the essence of information granulation and afterwards elaborate on the main approaches to the design of information granules. We distinguish between user-driven, data-driven and hybrid methods of information granulation. Several main classes of membership functions of information granules-fuzzy sets are investigated and contrasted in terms of some selection criteria such as parametric flexibility and sensitivity of the ensuing information granules. We propose two fundamental concepts in data mining: associations and rules. Associations are direction-free constructs that capture the most essential components of the overall structure in database. The relevance of associations is expressed by the cardinality of the data embraced by the Cartesian products of the information granules contributing to the construction of the associations. The proposed methodology of data mining comprises two phases. First, associations are built and the most essential (relevant) ones are collected in the form of a data mining agenda. Second, some associations can be converted into direction-driven constructs (rules). The idea of consistency of the rules is discussed in detail.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.027

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.008
Science and technology studies0.0010.004
Scholarly communication0.0070.007
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.129
GPT teacher head0.329
Teacher spread0.200 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations13
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStudies in fuzziness and soft computingSame topicRough Sets and Fuzzy LogicFrench-language works237,207