MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1964744646 · doi:10.1057/palgrave.ivs.9500069

A Pivot-Based Routine for Improved Parent-Finding in Hybrid MDS

2004· article· en· W1964744646 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Alistair Morrison, Matthew Chalmers

Bibliographic record

VenueInformation Visualization · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicData Management and Algorithms
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of British Columbia
KeywordsComputer scienceInterpolation (computer graphics)Set (abstract data type)HeuristicAlgorithmReduction (mathematics)Computational complexity theoryCurse of dimensionalityMultidimensional scalingTheoretical computer scienceData miningArtificial intelligenceMathematicsMachine learningProgramming language

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The problem of exploring or visualising data of high dimensionality is central to many tools for information visualisation. Through representing a data set in terms of inter-object proximities, multidimensional scaling may be employed to generate a configuration of objects in low-dimensional space in such a way as to preserve high-dimensional relationships. An algorithm is presented here for a heuristic hybrid model for the generation of such configurations. Building on a model introduced in 2002, the algorithm functions by means of sampling, spring model and interpolation phases. The most computationally complex stage of the original algorithm involved the execution of a series of nearest-neighbour searches. In this paper, we describe how the complexity of this phase has been reduced by treating all high-dimensional relationships as a set of discretised distances to a constant number of randomly selected items: pivots. In improving this computational bottle-neck, the algorithmic complexity is reduced from O( N√N) to O( N 5/4 ). As well as documenting this improvement, the paper describes evaluation with a data set of 108,000 13-dimensional items and a set of 23,141 17-dimensional items. Results illustrate that the reduction in complexity is reflected in significantly improved run times and that no negative impact is made upon the quality of layout produced.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.027

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0030.004
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.003

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.293
Teacher spread0.272 · 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

Citations31
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInformation VisualizationSame topicData Management and AlgorithmsFrench-language works237,207