Visually Contrast Two Collections of Frequent Patterns
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Frequent pattern mining searches for frequently occurring sets of items or events. While users are interested in finding these frequent patterns in most situations, they may want to compare and contrast the mined frequent patterns in some other situations. For example, store managers may want to find out how the collections of frequently purchased items changed from one season to another. Similarly, regional managers may want to compare the frequently purchased items between two different branches. These are some examples of looking for temporal and/or spatial changes between mined frequent patterns. A visual representation of these patterns would be more comprehensive to users than the long textual list returned by many existing frequent pattern mining algorithms. However, many existing visualizers were not designed to show frequent patterns, let alone show the differences between them. In this paper, we propose a visualization system called Contrast Viz that enables users to visualize the mined frequent patterns and their differences.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it