Bibliographic record
Abstract
The microeconomic framework for data mining [7] assumes that an enterprise chooses a decision maximizing the overall utility over all customers where the contribution of a customer is a function of the data available on that customer. In Catalog Segmentation, the enterprise wants to design k product catalogs of size r that maximize the overall number of catalog products purchased. However, there are many applications where a customer, once attracted to an enterprise, would purchase more products beyond the ones contained in the catalog. Therefore, in this paper, we investigate an alternative problem formulation, that we call Customer-Oriented Catalog Segmentation, where the overall utility is measured by the number of customers that have at least a specified minimum interest t in the catalogs. We formally introduce the Customer-Oriented Catalog Segmentation problem and discuss its complexity. Then we investigate two different paradigms to design efficient, approximate algorithms for the Customer-Oriented Catalog Segmentation problem, greedy (deterministic) and randomized algorithms. Since greedy algorithms may be trapped in a local optimum and randomized algorithms crucially depend on a reasonable initial solution, we explore a combination of these two paradigms. Our experimental evaluation on synthetic and real data demonstrates that the new algorithms yield catalogs of significantly higher utility compared to classical Catalog Segmentation algorithms.
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 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".