Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, we extend the scope of mining association rules from traditional single-dimensional intratransaction associations, to multidimensional intertransaction associations. Intratransaction associations are the associations among items with the same transaction , where the notion of the transaction could be the items bought by the same customer , the events happened on the same day , and so on. However, an intertransaction association describes the association relationships among different transactions , such as “if(company) A's stock goes up on day 1, B's stock will go down on day 2, but go up on day 4.” In this case, whether we treat company or day as the unit of transaction, the associated items belong to different transactions. Moreover, such an intertransaction association can be extended to associate multiple contextual properties in the same rule, so that multidimensional intertransaction associations can be defined and discovered. A two-dimensional intertransaction association rule example is “After McDonald and Burger King open branches, KFC will open a branch two months later and one mile away,” which involves two dimensions: time and space . Mining intertransaction associations poses more challenges on efficient processing than mining intratransaction associations. Interestingly, intratransaction association can be treated as a special case of intertransaction association from both a conceptual and algorithmic point of view. In this study, we introduce the notion of multidimensional intertransaction association rules, study their measurements— support and confidence—and develop algorithms for mining intertransaction associations by extension of Apriori. We overview our experience using the algorithms on both real-life and synthetic data sets. Further extensions of multidimensional intertransaction association rules and potential applications are also discussed.
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 | 0.011 | 0.054 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".