Associative Classification with Statistically Significant Positive and Negative Rules
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Rule-based classifier has shown its popularity in building many decision support systems such as medical diagnosis and financial fraud detection. One major advantage is that the models are human understandable and can be edited. Associative classifiers, as an extension of rule-based classifiers, use association rules to associate attributes with class labels. A delicate issue of associative classifiers is the need for subtle thresholds: minimum support and minimum confidence. Without prior knowledge, it could be difficult to choose the proper thresholds, and the discovered rules within the support-confidence framework are not statistically significant, i.e., inclusion of noisy rules and exclusion of valuable rules. Besides, most associative classifiers proposed so far, are built with only positive association rules. Negative rules, however, are also able to provide valuable information to discriminate between classes. To solve the above mentioned problems, we propose a novel associative classifier which is built upon both positive and negative classification association rules that show statistically significant dependencies. Experimental results on real-world datasets show that our method achieves competitive or even better performance than well-known rule-based and associative classifiers in terms of both classification accuracy and computational efficiency.
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 | 0.006 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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.
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".