Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mining frequent patterns has been a focused topic in data mining research in recent years, with the developmeht of numerous interesting algorithms for mining association, correlation, causality, sequential patterns, partial periodicity, constraint-based frequent pattern mining, associative classification, emerging patterns, etc. Most of the previous studies adopt an Apriori-like, candidate generation-and-test approach. However, based on our analysis, candidate generation and test may still be expensive, especially when encountering long and numerous patterns. A new methodology, called f r e q u e n t p a t t e r n growth, which mines frequent patterns without candidate generation, has been developed. The method adopts a divide-andconquer philosophy to project and partition databases based on the currently discovered frequent patterns and grow such patterns to longer ones in the projected databases. Moreover, efficient data structures have been developed for effective database compression and fast in-memory traversal. Such a methodology may eliminate or substantially reduce the number of candidate sets to be generated and also reduce the size of the database to be iteratively examined, and, therefore, lead to high performance. In this paper, we provide an overview of this approach and examine its methodology and implications for mining several kinds of frequent patterns, including association, frequent closed itemsets, max-patterns, sequential patterns, and constraint-based mining of frequent patterns. We show that frequent pattern growth is efficient at mining large databases and its further development may lead to scalable mining of many other kinds of patterns as well.
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 | 0.003 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".