MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2022902860 · doi:10.1145/1007568.1007621

Incremental and effective data summarization for dynamic hierarchical clustering

2004· article· en· W2022902860 on OpenAlexaff
Samer Nassar, Jörg Sander, Corrine Cheng

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicData Management and Algorithms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAutomatic summarizationComputer scienceCluster analysisData miningMerge (version control)Hierarchical clusteringData stream clusteringCURE data clustering algorithmFuzzy clusteringInformation retrievalArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Mining informative patterns from very large, dynamically changing databases poses numerous interesting challenges. Data summarizations (e.g., data bubbles) have been proposed to compress very large static databases into representative points suitable for subsequent effective hierarchical cluster analysis. In many real world applications, however, the databases dynamically change due to frequent insertions and deletions, possibly changing the data distribution and clustering structure over time. Completely reapplying both the data summarization and the clustering algorithm to detect the changes in the clustering structure and update the uncovered data patterns following such deletions and insertions is prohibitively expensive for large fast changing databases. In this paper, we propose a new scheme to maintain data bubbles incrementally. By using incremental data bubbles, a high-quality hierarchical clustering is quickly available at any point in time. In our scheme, a quality measure for incremental data bubbles is used to identify data bubbles that do not compress well their underlying data points after certain insertions and deletions. Only these data bubbles are re-built using efficient split and merge operations. An extensive experimental evaluation shows that the incremental data bubbles provide significantly faster data summarization than completely re-building the data bubbles after a certain number of insertions and deletions, and are effective in preserving (and in some cases even improving) the quality of the data summarization.

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.003
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.259 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations38
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicData Management and AlgorithmsFrench-language works237,207