MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1987209614 · doi:10.5539/cis.v1n3p66

Similarity Matrix Based Session Clustering by Sequence Alignment Using Dynamic Programming

2008· article· en· W1987209614 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
K. Duraiswamy, V. Valli Mayil

Bibliographic record

VenueComputer and Information Science · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicData Stream Mining Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceSession (web analytics)Cluster analysisWeb miningHierarchical clusteringSimilarity (geometry)Information retrievalWorld Wide WebData miningWeb serviceDatabase transactionDatabaseMachine learningArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

With the rapid increasing popularity of the WWW, Websites are playing a crucial role to convey knowledge to the end users. Every request of Web site or a transaction on the server is stored in a file called server log file. Providing Web administrator with meaningful information about user access behavior (also called click stream data) has become a necessity to improve the quality of Web information and service performance. As such, the hidden knowledge obtained from mining, web server traffic data and user access patterns ( called Web Usage Mining), could be directly used for marketing and management of E-business, E-services, E-searching , E-education and so on.Categorizing visitors or users based on their interaction with a web site is a key problem in web usage mining. The click stream generated by various users often follows distinct patterns, clustering of the access pattern will provide the knowledge, which may help in recommender system of finding learning pattern of user in E-learning system , finding group of visitors with similar interest , providing customized content in site manager, categorizing customers in E-shopping etc.Given session information, this paper focuses a method to find session similarity by sequence alignment using dynamic programming, and proposes a model such as similarity matrix for representing session similarity measures. The work presented in this paper follows Agglomerative Hierarchical Clustering method to cluster the similarity matrix in order to group similar sessions and the clustering process is depicted in dendrogram diagram.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.032
GPT teacher head0.309
Teacher spread0.277 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations13
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueComputer and Information ScienceSame topicData Stream Mining TechniquesFrench-language works237,207