MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1992565631 · doi:10.1109/dbkda.2010.32

Clustering Relational Database Entities Using K-means

2010· article· en· W1992565631 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicText and Document Classification Technologies
Canadian institutionsOntario Tech University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceCluster analysisHomogeneousData typeTask (project management)Perspective (graphical)Relational databaseVectorization (mathematics)Data miningProcess (computing)The InternetInformation retrievalDatabaseParallel computingArtificial intelligenceWorld Wide WebProgramming languageMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The fast evolution of hardware and the internet made large volumes of data more accessible. This data is composed of heterogeneous data types such as text, numbers, multimedia, and others. Non-overlapping research communities work on processing homogeneous data types. Nevertheless, from the user perspective, these heterogeneous data types should behave and be accessed in a similar fashion. Processing heterogeneous data types, which is Heterogeneous Data Mining (HDM), is a complex task. However, the HDM by Unified Vectorization (HDM-UV) seems to be an appropriate solution for this problem because it permits to process the heterogeneous data types simultaneously. In this paper, we use K-means and Self-Organizing Maps for simultaneously processing textual and numerical data types by UV. We evaluate how the HDM-UV improves the clustering results of these two algorithms (SOM, K-means) by comparing them to the traditional homogeneous data processing. Furthermore, we compare the clustering results of the two algorithms applied to a data integration problem.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.943
Threshold uncertainty score0.203

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.049
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.229 · 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