MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2039746571 · doi:10.1109/ichit.2006.211

Rough Discretization of Gene Expression Data

2006· article· en· W2039746571 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

VenueInternational Conference on Hybrid Information Technology · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicRough Sets and Fuzzy Logic
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Regina
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRough setDiscretizationData miningObject (grammar)Reduction (mathematics)Set (abstract data type)Computer scienceExpression (computer science)MathematicsAlgorithmArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We adapt the rough set-based approach to deal with the gene expression data, where the problem is a huge amount of genes (attributes) a?A versus small amount of experiments (objects) u?U. We perform the gene reduction using standard rough set methodology based on approximate decision reducts applied against specially prepared data. We use rough discretization - Every pair of objects (x,y)xU yields a new object, which takes values \ge a(x) if and only if a(y)\ge a(x); and \le a(x) otherwise; over original genes-attributes aA. In this way: 1) We work with desired, larger number of objects improving credibility of the obtained reducts; 2) We produce more decision rules, which vote during classification of new observations; 3) We avoid an issue of discretization of real-valued attributes, difficult and leading to unpredictable results in case of any data sets having much more attributes than objects. We illustrate our method by analysis of the gene expression data related to breast cancer.

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 categoriesnone
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 score0.937
Threshold uncertainty score0.396

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.030
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.238 · 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