MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2101865757 · doi:10.1504/ijica.2012.050053

Improving a dynamic ensemble selection method based on oracle information

2012· article· en· W2101865757 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

VenueInternational Journal of Innovative Computing and Applications · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicMachine Learning and Data Classification
Canadian institutionsÉcole de Technologie SupérieureUniversité du Québec à Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceOracleNISTClassifier (UML)Artificial intelligencek-nearest neighbors algorithmEnsemble learningCluster analysisData miningPattern recognition (psychology)Nearest neighbourSelection (genetic algorithm)Machine learningNatural language processing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This work evaluates some strategies to approximate the performance of a dynamic ensemble selection method to the oracle performance of its pool of weak classifiers. For this purpose, we evaluated different distance metrics in the K-nearest-oracles (KNORA) method, the use of statistics related to the class accuracy of each classifier in the pool and some additional information calculated by using a clustering process in the validation dataset. Moreover, different strategies are also evaluated to combine the results of the KNORA dynamic ensemble selection method with the results of its built-in K-nearest neighbour (KNN) used to define the neighbourhood of a test pattern during the ensemble creation. A strong experimental protocol based on more than 60,000 samples of handwriting digits extracted from NIST-SD19 was used to evaluate each strategy. The experiments have shown that the fusion of the KNORA results with the results of its built-in KNN is a very promising strategy.

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)0.001
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.946
Threshold uncertainty score0.325

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 science0.0000.000
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.329
Teacher spread0.318 · 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