Joint feature selection and hierarchical classifier design
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
This work presents a method for improving classifier accuracy through joint feature selection and hierarchical classifier design with genetic algorithms. The hierarchical classifier divides the classification problem into a set of smaller problems using multiple feature-selected classifiers in a tree configuration to separate the data into progressively smaller groups of classes. This allows the use of more specific feature sets for each set of classes. Several existing performance measures for evaluating the feature sets are investigated, and a new measure, count-based RELIEF is proposed. The joint feature selection and hierarchical classifier design method is tested on two artificial data sets. Results indicate that the feature selected hierarchical classifiers are able to achieve better accuracy than a non-hierarchical classifier using feature selection alone. The newly proposed performance measure is also tested and shown to provide a better indication of classifier performance than existing methods.
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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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