Bibliographic record
Abstract
The analysis of logs related to social communities has recently received considerable attention for its importance in shedding light on social concerns by identifying different groups, and hence helps in resolving issues like predicting terrorist groups. In general, identifying calling communities can be used to determine a particular customer’s value according to the general pattern of behaviour of the community that the customer belongs to; this helps in creating an effective targeted marketing design, which is significantly important for increasing profitability. In the telecommunications industry, machine-learning techniques have been applied to the Call Detail Record (CDR) for predicting customer behaviour such as churn prediction. In this paper, we pursue the identification of the calling communities and demonstrate how cluster analysis can be used to effectively identify communities using information derived from the CDR data. We use the information extracted from the cluster analysis to identify customer calling patterns. Customer calling patterns are then input to a classification algorithm to generate a classifier model for predicting the calling communities of a customer. We apply two different classification methods: the Support Vector Machine (SVM) algorithm and the fuzzy genetic classifier. The latter method is used for possibly assigning a customer to different classes with different degrees of membership. The reported test results demonstrate the applicability and effectiveness of the proposed approach.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".