COMPARISON OF INTERESTINGNESS MEASURES FOR WEB USAGE MINING: AN EMPIRICAL STUDY
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
A common problem in mining association rules or sequential patterns is that a large number of rules or patterns can be generated from a database, making it impossible for a human analyst to digest the results. Solutions to the problem include, among others, using interestingness measures to identify interesting rules or patterns and pruning rules that are considered redundant. Various interestingness measures have been proposed, but little work has been reported on the effectiveness of the measures on real-world applications. We present an application of Web usage mining to a large collection of Livelink log data. Livelink is a web-based product of Open Text Corporation, which provides automatic management and retrieval of different types of information objects over an intranet, an extranet or the Internet. We report our experience in preprocessing raw log data, mining association rules and sequential patterns from the log data, and identifying interesting rules and patterns by use of interestingness measures and some pruning methods. In particular, we evaluate a number of interestingness measures in terms of their effectiveness in finding interesting association rules and sequential patterns. Our results show that some measures are much more effective than others.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| 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