MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2113747757 · doi:10.1109/icdm.2005.119

Partial Ensemble Classifiers Selection for Better Ranking

2006· article· en· W2113747757 on OpenAlexaff
Jin Huang, Charles X. Ling

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicImbalanced Data Classification Techniques
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRanking (information retrieval)Computer scienceAdaBoostMachine learningArtificial intelligenceEnsemble learningTask (project management)Selection (genetic algorithm)Data miningRanking SVMLearning to rankPattern recognition (psychology)Support vector machineEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ranking is an important task in data mining and knowledge discovery. We propose a novel approach called PECS algorithm to improve the overall ranking performance of a given ensemble. We formally analyse the sufficient and necessary condition under which PECS algorithm can effectively improve ensemble ranking performance. The experiments with real-world data sets show that this new approach achieves significant improvements in ranking over the original bagging and Adaboost ensembles.

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 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)0.000
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.625
Threshold uncertainty score0.323

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.238 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicImbalanced Data Classification TechniquesFrench-language works237,207