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
Clustering methods can be either data-driven or need-driven. Data-driven methods intend to discover the true structure of the underlying data while need-driven methods aims at organizing the true structure to meet certain application requirements. Thus, need-driven (e.g. constrained) clustering is able to find more useful and actionable clusters in applications such as energy aware sensor networks, privacy preservation, and market segmentation. However, the existing methods of constrained clustering require users to provide the number of clusters, which is often unknown in advance, but has a crucial impact on the clustering result. In this paper, we argue that a more natural way to generate actionable clusters is to let the application-specific constraints decide the number of clusters. For this purpose, we introduce a novel cluster model, Constraint-Driven Clustering (CDC), which finds an a priori unspecified number of compact clusters that satisfy all user-provided constraints. Two general types of constraints are considered, i.e. minimum significance constraints and minimum variance constraints, as well as combinations of these two types. We prove the NP-hardness of the CDC problem with different constraints. We propose a novel dynamic data structure, the CD-Tree, which organizes data points in leaf nodes such that each leaf node approximately satisfies the CDC constraints and minimizes the objective function. Based on CD-Trees, we develop an efficient algorithm to solve the new clustering problem. Our experimental evaluation on synthetic and real datasets demonstrates the quality of the generated clusters and the scalability of the algorithm.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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