Classification-Based Clustering Evaluation
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
The evaluation of clustering quality has proven to be a difficult task. While it is generally agreed that application specific human assessment can provide a reasonable gold standard for clustering evaluation, the use of human assessors is not practical in many real situations. As a result, machine computable internal clustering quality measures (CQMs) are often used in the evaluation process. However, CQMs have their own drawbacks. Despite their extensive use in clustering research and applications, many CQMs have been shown to lack generality. In this paper we present a new CQM with general applicability. The basis of our CQM is a pattern recognition view of clustering's purpose: the unsupervised prediction of behavior from populations. This purpose translates naturally into our new classifier based CQM which we refer to as in formativeness. We show that in formativeness can satisfy core CQM axioms defined in prior research. Additionally, we provide experimental support, showing that in formativeness can outperform many established CQMs by detecting a larger variety of meaningful structures across a range of synthetic datasets, while at the same time exhibiting good performance on each individual dataset. Our results indicate that in formativeness provides a highly general and effective CQM.
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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it