MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2101821333 · doi:10.5430/air.v3n1p38

A statistical approach for clustering in streaming data

2014· article· en· W2101821333 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Niloofar Mozafari, Sattar Hashemi, Ali Hamzeh

Bibliographic record

VenueArtificial Intelligence Research · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicData Stream Mining Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCluster analysisComputer scienceData stream miningData stream clusteringComponent (thermodynamics)Data miningContext (archaeology)Data streamConcept driftStreaming dataFocus (optics)Unsupervised learningMachine learningCURE data clustering algorithmCorrelation clustering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recently data stream has been extensively explored due to its emergence in large deal of applications such as sensor networks,web click streams and network flows. Vast majority of researches in the context of data stream mining are devoted to superviselearning, whereas, in real word human practice label of data are rarely available to the learning algorithms. Hence, clustering asthe most important unsupervised learning has been in the gravity of focus of quite a lot number of the researchers in data streamcommunity. Clustering paradigms basically place the similar objects together and separate the dissimilar ones into differentclusters.In this paper, we propose a Statistical framework for data Stream Clustering, which abbreviated as StatisStreamClust that makesuse of two components to find clusters in data stream. The first component especially designed to detect concept change wheredata underlying distributions change from time to time. Upon detection of concept change by the first component, the secondcomponent is triggered to update the whole clustering model. StatisStreamClust brings great benefits to data stream clusteringincluding no sensitivity to the number of clusters and dimensions, reasonable complexity and in the meantime desirable performance,and finally no need to determine window size a priori. To explore the advantages of our approach, quite a lot ofexperiments with different settings and specifications are conducted. The obtained results are very promising.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0050.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.426
GPT teacher head0.487
Teacher spread0.061 · 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

Citations8
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArtificial Intelligence ResearchSame topicData Stream Mining TechniquesFrench-language works237,207