MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2089055054 · doi:10.1145/1401890.1401956

Finding non-redundant, statistically significant regions in high dimensional data

2008· article· en· W2089055054 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Clustering Algorithms Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCluster analysisDisjoint setsComputer scienceCluster (spacecraft)OutlierData miningSingle-linkage clusteringClustering high-dimensional dataSubspace topologyComplete-linkage clusteringData pointCorrelation clusteringDetermining the number of clusters in a data setCURE data clustering algorithmPattern recognition (psychology)Artificial intelligenceMathematicsCombinatorics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Projected and subspace clustering algorithms search for clusters of points in subsets of attributes. Projected clustering computes several disjoint clusters, plus outliers, so that each cluster exists in its own subset of attributes. Subspace clustering enumerates clusters of points in all subsets of attributes, typically producing many overlapping clusters. One problem of existing approaches is that their objectives are stated in a way that is not independent of the particular algorithm proposed to detect such clusters. A second problem is the definition of cluster density based on user-defined parameters, which makes it hard to assess whether the reported clusters are an artifact of the algorithm or whether they actually stand out in the data in a statistical sense.

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.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.919
Threshold uncertainty score0.463

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0020.002
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 head0.105
GPT teacher head0.344
Teacher spread0.239 · 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

Quick stats

Citations109
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAdvanced Clustering Algorithms ResearchFrench-language works237,207