MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2041738807 · doi:10.1111/0824-7935.00154

Rule Quality Measures for Rule Induction Systems: Description and Evaluation

2001· article· en· W2041738807 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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueComputational Intelligence · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicData Mining Algorithms and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersGovernment of Canada
KeywordsRule inductionGeneralizationRule-based systemComputer scienceQuality (philosophy)Selection (genetic algorithm)Learning ruleSet (abstract data type)Artificial intelligenceMathematicsMachine learningData miningArtificial neural network

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A rule quality measure is important to a rule induction system for determining when to stop generalization or specialization. Such measures are also important to a rule‐based classification procedure for resolving conflicts among rules. We describe a number of statistical and empirical rule quality formulas and present an experimental comparison of these formulas on a number of standard machine learning datasets. We also present a meta‐learning method for generating a set of formula‐behavior rules from the experimental results which show the relationships between a formula's performance and the characteristics of a dataset. These formula‐behavior rules are combined into formula‐selection rules that can be used in a rule induction system to select a rule quality formula before rule induction. We will report the experimental results showing the effects of formula‐selection on the predictive performance of a rule induction system.

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)0.001
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.806
Threshold uncertainty score0.419

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.187
GPT teacher head0.386
Teacher spread0.199 · 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