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
It has been well recognized that frequent pattern mining plays an essential role in many important data mining tasks. However, frequent pattern mining often generates a very large number of patterns and rules, which reduces not only the efficiency but also the effectiveness of mining. Recent work has highlighted the importance of the constraint-based mining paradigm in the context of mining frequent itemsets, associations, correlations, sequential patterns, and many other interesting patterns in large databases.Recently, we developed efficient pattern-growth methods for frequent pattern mining. Interestingly, pattern-growth methods are not only efficient but also effective in mining with various constraints. Many tough constraints which cannot be handled by previous methods can be pushed deep into the pattern-growth mining process. In this paper, we overview the principles of pattern-growth methods for constrained frequent pattern mining and sequential pattern mining. Moreover, we explore the power of pattern-growth methods towards mining with tough constraints and highlight some interesting open problems.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
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.
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