Joint cluster analysis of attribute data and relationship data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Attribute data and relationship data are two principal types of data, representing the intrinsic and extrinsic properties of entities. While attribute data have been the main source of data for cluster analysis, relationship data such as social networks or metabolic networks are becoming increasingly available. It is also common to observe both data types carry complementary information such as in market segmentation and community identification, which calls for a joint cluster analysis of both data types so as to achieve better results. In this article, we introduce the novel Connected k -Center ( CkC ) problem, a clustering model taking into account attribute data as well as relationship data. We analyze the complexity of the problem and prove its NP-hardness. Therefore, we analyze the approximability of the problem and also present a constant factor approximation algorithm. For the special case of the CkC problem where the relationship data form a tree structure, we propose a dynamic programming method giving an optimal solution in polynomial time. We further present NetScan, a heuristic algorithm that is efficient and effective for large real databases. Our extensive experimental evaluation on real datasets demonstrates the meaningfulness and accuracy of the NetScan results.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".