MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2051195289 · doi:10.1145/1077501.1077517

Clustering mixed numerical and low quality categorical data

2005· article· en· W2051195289 on OpenAlexaff
Bill Andreopoulos, Aijun An, Xiaogang Wang

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGene expression and cancer classification
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCluster analysisCategorical variableCorrectnessData miningComputer scienceGene ontologyArtificial intelligenceAlgorithmMachine learningGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We present the M-BILCOM algorithm for clustering mixed numerical and categorical data sets, in which the categorical attribute values (CAs) are not certain to be correct and have associated confidence values (CVs) from 0.0 to 1.0 to represent their certainty of correctness. M-BILCOM performs bi-level clustering of mixed data sets resembling a Bayesian process. We have applied M-BILCOM to yeast data sets in which the CAs were perturbed randomly and CVs were assigned indicating the confidence of correctness of the CAs. On such mixed data sets M-BILCOM outperforms other clustering algorithms, such as AutoClass. We have applied M-BILCOM to real numerical data sets from gene expression studies on yeast, incorporating CAs representing Gene Ontology annotations on the genes and CVs representing Gene Ontology Evidence Codes on the CAs. We apply novel significance metrics to the CAs in resulting clusters, to extract the most significant CAs based on their frequencies and their CVs in the cluster. For genomic data sets, we use the most significant CAs in a cluster to predict gene function.

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 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)0.000
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.693
Threshold uncertainty score0.225

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.337
Teacher spread0.286 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations6
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicGene expression and cancer classificationFrench-language works237,207