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
Frequent pattern mining is an important data-mining problem with broad applications. Although there are many in-depth studies on efficient frequent pattern mining algorithms and constraint pushing techniques, the effectiveness of frequent pattern mining remains a serious concern: It is non-trivial and often tricky to specify appropriate support thresholds and proper constraints. In this paper, we propose a novel theme of preference-based frequent pattern mining. A user simply can specify a preference instead of setting detailed parameters in constraints. We identify the problem of preference-based frequent pattern mining and formulate the preferences for mining. We develop an efficient framework to mine frequent patterns with preferences. Interestingly, many preferences can be pushed deep into the mining by properly employing the existing efficient frequent pattern mining techniques. We conduct an extensive performance study to examine our method. The results indicate that preference-based frequent pattern mining is effective and efficient. Furthermore, we extend our discussion from pattern-based frequent pattern mining to preference-based data mining in principle and draw a general framework.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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