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
Abstract As an important data mining and knowledge discovery task, association rule mining searches for implicit, previously unknown, and potentially useful pieces of information—in the form of rules revealing associative relationships—that are embedded in the data. In general, the association rule mining process comprises two key steps. The first key step, which mines frequent patterns (i.e., frequently occurring sets of items) from data, is more computationally intensive than the second key step of using the mined frequent patterns to form association rules . In the early days, many developed algorithms mined frequent patterns from traditional transaction databases of precise data such as shopping market basket data, in which the contents of databases are known. However, we are living in an uncertain world, in which uncertain data can be found almost everywhere. Hence, in recent years, researchers have paid more attention to frequent pattern mining from probabilistic databases of uncertain data. In this paper, we review recent algorithmic development on mining uncertain data in these probabilistic databases for frequent patterns. © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. WIREs Data Mining Knowl Discov 2011 1 316–329 DOI: 10.1002/widm.31 This article is categorized under: Algorithmic Development > Association Rules
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.008 | 0.029 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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