MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2102297485 · doi:10.1145/1132960.1132963

Interestingness measures for data mining

2006· review· en· W2102297485 on OpenAlexaff
Liqiang Geng, Howard J. Hamilton

Bibliographic record

VenueACM Computing Surveys · 2006
Typereview
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicData Mining Algorithms and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Regina
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceRanking (information retrieval)Data miningProcess (computing)Data scienceMeasure (data warehouse)Information retrieval

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Interestingness measures play an important role in data mining, regardless of the kind of patterns being mined. These measures are intended for selecting and ranking patterns according to their potential interest to the user. Good measures also allow the time and space costs of the mining process to be reduced. This survey reviews the interestingness measures for rules and summaries, classifies them from several perspectives, compares their properties, identifies their roles in the data mining process, gives strategies for selecting appropriate measures for applications, and identifies opportunities for future research in this area.

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)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.042
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.063

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.042
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0160.018
Science and technology studies0.0010.004
Scholarly communication0.0050.012
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.003

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 head0.295
GPT teacher head0.420
Teacher spread0.124 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations1,125
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueACM Computing SurveysSame topicData Mining Algorithms and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207