MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1963523624 · doi:10.1145/1281192.1281248

Joint cluster analysis of attribute and relationship data withouta-priori specification of the number of clusters

2007· article· en· W1963523624 on OpenAlexaff
Flavia Moser, Rong Ge, Martin Ester

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicData Management and Algorithms
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCluster analysisA priori and a posterioriComputer scienceData miningCluster (spacecraft)Probabilistic logicTheoretical computer scienceArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In many applications, attribute and relationship data areavailable, carrying complementary information about real world entities. In such cases, a joint analysis of both types of data can yield more accurate results than classical clustering algorithms that either use only attribute data or only relationship (graph) data. The Connected k-Center (CkC) has been proposed as the first joint cluster analysis model to discover k clusters which are cohesive on both attribute and relationship data. However, it is well-known that prior knowledge on the number of clusters is often unavailable in applications such as community dentification and hotspot analysis. In this paper, we introduce and formalize the problem of discovering an a-priori unspecified number of clusters in the context of joint cluster analysis of attribute and relationship data, called Connected X Clusters (CXC) problem. True clusters are assumed to be compact and distinctive from their neighboring clusters in terms of attribute data and internally connected in terms of relationship data. Different from classical attribute-based clustering methods, the neighborhood of clusters is not defined in terms of attribute data but in terms of relationship data. To efficiently solve the CXC problem, we present JointClust, an algorithm which adopts a dynamic two-phase approach. In the first phase, we find so called cluster atoms. We provide a probability analysis for thisphase, which gives us a probabilistic guarantee, that each true cluster is represented by at least one of the initial cluster atoms. In the second phase, these cluster atoms are merged in a bottom-up manner resulting in a dendrogram. The final clustering is determined by our objective function. Our experimental evaluation on several real datasets demonstrates that JointClust indeed discovers meaningful and accurate clusterings without requiring the user to specify the number of clusters.

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)0.015
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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.005
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0030.004
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.082
GPT teacher head0.309
Teacher spread0.227 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations36
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicData Management and AlgorithmsFrench-language works237,207