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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper introduces a concept and design of decision trees based on information granules - multivariable entities characterized by high homogeneity (low variability). As such granules are developed via fuzzy clustering and play a pivotal role in the growth of the decision trees, they will be referred to as C-fuzzy decision trees. In contrast with "standard" decision trees in which one variable (feature) is considered at a time, this form of decision trees involves all variables that are considered at each node of the tree. Obviously, this gives rise to a completely new geometry of the partition of the feature space that is quite different from the guillotine cuts implemented by standard decision trees. The growth of the C-decision tree is realized by expanding a node of tree characterized by the highest variability of the information granule residing there. This paper shows how the tree is grown depending on some additional node expansion criteria such as cardinality (number of data) at a given node and a level of structural dependencies (structurability) of data existing there. A series of experiments is reported using both synthetic and machine learning data sets. The results are compared with those produced by the "standard" version of the decision tree (namely, C4.5).
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it