MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2011376672 · doi:10.1145/1007730.1007737

Class imbalances versus small disjuncts

2004· article· en· W2011376672 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueACM SIGKDD Explorations Newsletter · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicImbalanced Data Classification Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceClass (philosophy)Focus (optics)Classifier (UML)Artificial intelligenceMachine learning

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

It is often assumed that class imbalances are responsible for significant losses of performance in standard classifiers. The purpose of this paper is to the question whether class imbalances are truly responsible for this degradation or whether it can be explained in some other way. Our experiments suggest that the problem is not directly caused by class imbalances, but rather, that class imbalances may yield small disjuncts which, in turn, will cause degradation. We argue that, in order to improve classifier performance, it may, then, be more useful to focus on the small disjuncts problem than it is to focus on the class imbalance problem. We experiment with a method that takes the small disjunct problem into consideration, and show that, indeed, it yields a performance superior to the performance obtained using standard or advanced solutions to the class imbalance problem.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.543
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.068
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.212 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it