CLUSTERING QUALITY MEASURES BASED ON COMPARING THE PROXIMITY MATRICES FOR THE MEMBERSHIP VECTORS AND THE OBJECTS
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
There are several commonly accepted clustering quality measures (clustering quality as opposed to cluster quality) such as the rand index, the adjusted rand index and the jacquard index. Each of these however is based on comparing the partition produced by the clustering process to a correct partition. They can therefore only be used to determine the quality of a clustering process when the correct partition is known. This paper therefore proposes another clustering quality measure that does not require the comparison to a correct partition. The proposed metric is based on the assumption that the proximities between the membership vectors should correlate positively with the proximities between the objects which may be the proximities between their feature vectors. The values of the components of the membership vector, corresponding to a pattern, are the membership degrees of the pattern in the various clusters. The membership vector is just another object data vector or type of feature vector with the feature values for an object being the membership values of the object in the various clusters. Based on this premise, this paper describes some new cluster quality metrics derived from standard correlation measures and other proposed correlation metrics. Simulations on data with a wide range of clusterability or separability show that the approach of comparing the proximity matrix based on the membership matrix to the object proximity matrix is quite effective.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 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