MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2048741410 · doi:10.1109/tsmcb.2012.2237394

Feature-Selected Tree-Based Classification

2013· article· en· W2048741410 on OpenAlexaff
Cecille Freeman, Dana Kulić, Otman Basir

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Cybernetics · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicFace and Expression Recognition
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMulticlass classificationArtificial intelligenceSupport vector machineClassifier (UML)Pattern recognition (psychology)Feature selectionComputer scienceLinear classifierStructured support vector machineBinary classificationMachine learningData mining

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Feature selection can decrease classifier size and improve accuracy by removing noisy and/or redundant features. However, it is possible for feature selection to yield features that are only partially informative about the classes in the set. These features are beneficial for distinguishing between some classes but not others. In these cases, it is beneficial to divide the large classification problem into a set of smaller problems, where a more specific set of features can be used to classify different classes. Dividing a problem this way is also common when the base classifier is binary, and the problem needs to be reformulated as a set of two-class problems so it can be handled by the classifier. This paper presents a method for multiclass classification that simultaneously formulates a binary tree of simpler classification subproblems and performs feature selection for the individual classifiers. The feature selected hierarchical classifier (FSHC) is tested against several well-known techniques for multiclass division. Tests are run on nine different real data sets and one artificial data set using a support vector machine (SVM) classifier. The results show that the accuracy obtained by the FSHC is comparable with other common multiclass SVM methods. Furthermore, the results demonstrate that the algorithm creates solutions with fewer classifiers, fewer features, and a shorter testing time than the other SVM multiclass extensions.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.229
Teacher spread0.210 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations59
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on CyberneticsSame topicFace and Expression RecognitionFrench-language works237,207